Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Equipment (Production and Supply)

Mr. Mason: asked the Postmaster-General if he is satisfied that the group of telephone manufacturers which is responsible for the production and supply of telephone equipment for his Department are meeting his requirements adequately; and if he will make a statement.

The Assistant Postmaster - General (Miss Mervyn Pike): The answer to the first part of the Question is: in general, yes. As to the second, my right hon. Friend has no statement to make, but if the hon. Member has any point particularly in mind and will let my right hon. Friend know he will, of course, be glad to consider it.

Mr. Mason: At the time when Mr. Stanley of the Pye Company was taking over the telephone manufacturing ring, he made a promise to the Department that he could assure it of reduced prices. Do I take it, therefore that those assurances have been met and that the Post Office is satisfied that we are to get cheaper equipment?

Miss Pike: I think that, on the whole, our present arrangements are working very well.

Public Kiosks

Mr. Hayman: asked the Postmaster-General his policy in regard to the provision of public telephone kiosks.

Miss Pike: Each case is considered on its merits. Clearly I have to have regard to financial considerations, but I do my best to meet real public needs.

Mr. Hayman: Are we to understand that the Postmaster-General is now insisting that every new public telephone kiosk must be a paying proposition? If that is so, is that not a complete contradiction of the policy which has been followed hitherto?

Miss Pike: No, Sir, but in rural areas kiosks are provided wherever a reasonable return can be expected and they are outside rural post offices. In addition, rural kiosks are provided under a rural allocation scheme and the programme is drawn up by the local people. I can assure the hon. Member that we try to provide telephone kiosks where there is a real need for them, but we have to have regard to financial considerations.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Telecommunications Research Satellite

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a further statement regarding his investigations into the possibility of a British telecommunications research satellite and its commercial application.

Miss Pike: I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply of 1st December, 1960, to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason).

Mr. Donnelly: Is the hon. Lady aware that these Answers are becoming a bit of a bore and that we wait month after month without any clear idea from the Post Office about what it is doing regarding this very important project? Is she aware that suspicion is growing that the Post Office has not the technical competence to form a proper judgment about this very important development in the field of communications? What sort of investigation is actually taking place at the moment?

Miss Pike: We are very well aware of the importance of this development and our technical staff are working very closely with the Americans. Of course, these are early days, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall not lag behind.

Mr. Mason: Can the hon. Lady tell the House exactly what research we have conducted? Have any British scientists


and engineers taken steps towards the development of a satellite which may be used for communication purposes and to what extent have they worked with Post Office engineers in this matter?

Miss Pike: That is another question and if the hon. Member will put it on the Order Paper, I shall be glad to answer him.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the hon. Lady aware that two American companies, Bell and another company, have taken considerable steps towards putting forward practical proposals? Can she tell us whether the British Post Office has got as far in this respect?

Miss Pike: We are working very closely with the Americans.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Advertising

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Postmaster-General when he proposes to consult the Independent Television Authority under subsection (4) of section 4 of the Television Act, 1954, with a view to reducing the maximum amount of advertising in any hour from seven minutes to six minutes.

Miss Pike: My right hon. Friend does not propose to amend paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule of the Television Act.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the hon. Lady aware that by permitting in the past up to nine-and-a-half minutes advertising in the hour I.T.A. has bestowed more than £10 million of excess profits on the programme companies? May I ask, first, why this scandal is permitted and, secondly, why the maximum is now seven minutes instead of six minutes as originally promised in the House of Commons?

Miss Pike: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties. There has to be a certain amount of flexibility because of the nature of the programmes. I.T.A. is bringing the time down to seven minutes and we are watching this carefully, but there are difficulties about getting these things just spot on.

Oral Answers to Questions — METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE

Rain (Forecasting)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the exceptional amount of rain this autumn has stimulated research into the causes of periods of heavy rain; whether any lines of research useful for forecasting such periods are being developed; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. W. J. Taylor): The exceptional amount of rain in recent months has been the subject of careful study in the Meteorological Office, but there is still no reliable method of undertaking the necessary long-range forecasting.
Research continues and is not without promise, but the problems involved are extremely complicated.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would my hon. Friend agree that it would be a great help to poor people in the West Country to make preparations against floods if they could know which seasons are likely to be bad ones from a rain point of view? Is he aware that considerable research is going on in Germany and the United States of America into long-range weather forecasting? Will he make a priority in the Meteorological Office of bringing the matter forward?

Mr. Taylor: It would indeed be a great help to people in the West Country, and in the rest of the country, to have more accurate, or probably longer-range, meteorological forecasts. The problem will be solved ultimately, we think, but it will probably take years of research to do so. The whole world must be studied and more observations are needed from many parts, especially the tropics and the southern hemisphere. The high atmosphere must be further explored—for example, by rockets and satellites—and elaborate calculations, using the most advanced computers, are likely to be necessary. A report on long-range weather forecasting is being prepared by a Commission of the World Meteorological Organisation and will be discussed at a forthcoming meeting. The possibility of advancing the subject by international effort will be fully considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Air-Trooping Contract

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, before awarding an air-trooping contract to West Germany for British Army and Royal Air Force personnel to Silver City Airways, he invited British European Airways to tender.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: No, Sir.

Mr. Bellenger: Is it not unfair, considering the support which the British taxpayer gives to B.E.A., that it should not be allowed to tender in fair competition with a private undertaking, against which we have heard no complaint?

Mr. Taylor: Government policy in this matter has been explained to the House on many occasions. That policy, broadly, is that apart from a small number of ad hoc movements which have been undertaken, and apart from carriage of individual passengers on scheduled civil airlines, the independent civil operators carry out the air movement tasks and the national Corporations are asked to concentrate on the task of operating scheduled services in the face of tight international competition.

Mr. Paget: Is not the party opposite in favour of competition? Why does competition have to be excluded when the taxpayer has an interest in one of the competing bodies? This is very odd, is it not?

Mr. Taylor: Not at all; the air Corporations have a very important task, and an expanding task. I think that they have their work cut out to keep up to the progress required in that direction.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Motor Boats, Lake Windermere

Mr. de Ferranti: asked the Minister of Transport when he anticipates being in a position to take action, following the inquiry held at Windermere on 20th September, 1960, with regard to the need for additional safety rules on the lake, in view of the increasing use of fast motor boats.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): We are considering the recommendations made by the professional officer who held the inquiry and we expect to be able to reach a decision shortly.

Mr. de Ferranti: We are most grateful to my hon. Friend for the speed with which he has got on with dealing with the problem, but may I ask him to bear in mind when reaching a decision the very important recommendation that there should be at least two people in a motor boat when it is towing a water skier—one looking where the boat is going and one looking at the skier?

Mr. Hay: I have no doubt that that point was taken into account by our professional officer at the inquiry, but I will see that it is kept in mind.

Mr. J. Wells: Will my hon. Friend look at this matter from a national point of view before taking action in a particular area, because it is a growing problem in all areas? Will he take the advice of the Ship and Boat Builders National Federation on the matter?

Mr. Hay: I have to bear in mind that we are concerned with navigation on this particular lake, but I think we may learn very useful lessons as a result of the inquiry, and to that extent I agree with my hon. Friend.

Life Jackets

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the fact that his Department's standard life jacket does not comply with the Merchant Shipping (Life Saving Appliances) Rules, 1958, No. 602, Eleventh Schedule, Clause 3 (a), (b) and (c), except when worn by persons of light weight, what steps he is taking to approve life jackets already being manufactured which fully conform to these requirements laid down by him.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): From tests carried out by my Department, I am satisfied that the standard jacket complies with these requirements even when worn by heavy persons. My Department is always willing to test any design of lifejacket to see if it complies with the rules.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Would my right hon. Friend look at this matter again, because independent tests recently carried out showed that anybody of 15 stone or more would be turned over on to his face by this jacket? This is a very serious thing in the case of people who are either unconscious or unable to move.

Mr. Marples: I have looked at the particular demonstration to which my hon. Friend has referred, but the requirement is that the jacket should be able to support the head of an unconscious person out of the water and all these tests have taken place with a conscious person. It is very difficult for a conscious person to simulate an unconscious person.

Nuclear Power

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport when he will announce the award of a tender for the construction of the first British nuclear-powered merchant ship.

Mr. Marples: I regret that I am not yet in a position to forecast when a decision will be reached.

Mr. Wall: When will my right hon. Friend be able to reach a decision? Is he aware that there is a suspicion that the Atomic Energy Authority and its advisers are dragging their feet in this matter and that several nations will have ships at sea before we can possibly do so? Is he aware that any further delay may have grave repercussions on our future as a shipbuilding nation and even as a maritime Power?

Mr. Marples: This is a very complicated matter. Not only the Atomic Energy Authority is on this technical committee; there are shipbuilders, shipowners and Lloyd's Register. None of them has complained that the Atomic Energy Authority is dragging its feet. I can assure my hon. Friend that that is not so.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Motor Vehicles (Emission of Fumes)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he will now take to prevent the poisoning of the air in large towns by fumes from motor

vehicles, including visible smoke from diesel engines, to enforce the testing of engines which have been observed by police officers to emit excessive or unnecessary smoke, and to require the necessary adjustments or improvements to be made to such engines; and whether he has studied regulations on this subject now in operation in the City of Durban, proposals for similar action in the State of California and a report by Mr. Douglas Lister to the annual conference of the National Society for Clean Air at Harrogate on 5th October last at which his Department was represented, copies of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Swindon.

Mr. Marples: It is an offence to emit smoke or fumes from any vehicle if this might cause damage to property or injury or danger to people; the police can, and do, prosecute offenders. Many of the pollutants, especially invisible ones, are, however, difficult to measure. Officers of my Department have power to prohibit the use of unfit goods vehicles and buses, and, when the opportunity arises, urge on those concerned the importance of correct driving and maintenance to reduce fumes; their efforts are having some success. We study all proposals in this field and keep in touch with developments overseas. I have recently circulated a proposal to amend the law to ensure that the excess fuel device cannot be misused to obtain additional power while driving, e.g., on hills, at the expense of clouds of black smoke.

Mr. Noel-Baker: While thanking the Minister for taking a close interest in this very important matter, may I ask him if his Answer indicates that rings are being run round the law if it is really an offence to emit poisonous fumes? As he knows, in all big cities there is a very high concentration of carbon monoxide, 3–4 benzpyrene and other highly dangerous and poisonous substances. This is becoming a growing problem. Can he assure us that he is looking at it very carefully indeed and watching the increasing concentration of these poisonous gases in our cities?

Mr. Marples: I can assure the hon. Member that I am very concerned about this problem. The difficulty is to get a technical device which can measure it.


No country in the world has yet succeeded in doing that, but we are keeping in close touch with California. As soon as anyone gets a satisfactory device we shall look at it and try to get one of our own.

Mr. Dugdale: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many prosecutions have taken place and how many have been successful?

Mr. Marples: Not without notice.

Light Commercial Vehicles (Speed Limit)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now relax the 30 miles-per-hour speed limit for light commercial vehicles.

Mr. Marples: When this proposal was considered last year objections were raised to raising the limit for light commercial vehicles only. I am keeping the general question of vehicle speed limits under review.

Mr. Fisher: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a considerable difference between a heavy lorry and a light commercial vehicle which might suitably be reflected in a similar difference in the speed limit?

Mr. Marples: I will. The question of speed limits for all goods vehicles, as well as for public service passenger vehicles, is under consideration.

Mr. Mellish: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that before any decision is taken in this matter the trade unions involved will be consulted, because they have an interest in the personnel who drive these vehicles?

Mr. Marples: Certainly. We have already been in touch with them on other matters, and we shall be in touch with them on this.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the light van is built on a car chassis and is therefore the same as a car?

Mr. Marples: Yes.

Mr. Mackie: Is it not a fact that if one puts a seat in a light van, one can then drive at the speeds permitted to a motor car?

Hon. Members: A window.

Roundabouts

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Transport if he will prepare a code of traffic conduct for motorists negotiating roundabouts from different directions.

Mr. Marples: I think it would be wise for me to await the report of the subcommittee of the Departmental Committee on Road Safety which has been examining the whole problem of priorities at junctions, including roundabouts.

Mr. Fisher: In considering the recommendations, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that busy roundabouts nowadays can be very confusing and that if he could incorporate into the Highway Code or some other suitable publication some rules of precedence, it would help motorists greatly to avoid discourtesy and, indeed, danger?

Mr. Marples: I have been in touch with the Road Research Laboratory on this. The difficulty is to get agreement as to what the priority should be.

Mr. Gower: Is it not the fact that the rule in France appears to work quite easily and that, provided that my right hon. Friend makes up his mind, there should be no difficulty here?

Mr. Marples: The Committee has looked at all the systems abroad and will consider any system it sees before making any recommendations.

London

Mr. Speir: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the many complaints which are being made regarding the administration and operation of the London Transport Executive, whether he will set up a special committee to study these and other relevant matters and to make recommendations as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he has taken to relieve traffic congestion in London and cut down waiting time at omnibus stops; and if he will appoint a committee to examine and report on the omnibus services in the London area.

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Transport what reply he has made to the request sent to him by the London busmen for a public inquiry into the


organisation of London Transport Executive.

Mr. Marples: Congestion in London is being attacked in several ways. For example, I am prepared to see annual expenditure on road improvements within the County of London rise to £10 million. The London Traffic Management Unit continues to apply traffic engineering techniques to relieve congestion. The House will soon have before it a Bill to make possible a large car park under Hyde Park. These measures should improve conditions for all traffic including buses.
As regards a special inquiry, I have received a petition organised by some London busmen asking me for a public inquiry into London bus services. I am considering this.

Mr. Speir: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the proposals in paragraph 20 of the White Paper seem to propose only that the name of the London Transport Executive shall be changed to the London Transport Board? Does he appreciate that the label on the bottle does not matter very much and that it is the contents that count? What we want is new men and new methods.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend consider recommending to London Transport that it should try to put a new face on itself and should consider experimenting once again with the standee bus of the continental type during the rush hours to clear away these heavy queues which accumulate, particularly during the winter?

Mr. Marples: I have been in touch with the London Transport Executive and I will bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the attention of the Executive.

Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister aware that there are thousands of Londoners who would have liked the opportunity which I have this morning of telling him how tired they are of cuts in services, increases in fares, and waiting for long periods in all weathers for buses? Is he aware that the bus crews share in these complaints? Is he aware that many of these people feel that it is his duty to set up an inquiry to find out what is wrong with the administration of London Transport and how it can be put right?

Mr. Mellish: To support my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), may I ask the Minister whether he realises that this petition, organised by these busmen, was in fact on behalf of the travelling public and that it asked for a public inquiry? Any questions of the attitude of the busmen themselves can be developed at the inquiry. Does the Minister understand that many hon. Members on this side of the House take this inquiry very seriously indeed and that we hope that if he refuses it, he will give very adequate reasons why?

Mr. Marples: I am considering the inquiry, but I cannot add to my Answer.

Road Accidents, Warwickshire

Mr. Matthews: asked the Minister of Transport how many persons have died in Warwickshire during the past twelve months as a result of traffic accidents; and how these figures compare with previous years.

Mr. Hay: A total of 314 persons were killed in road accidents during the 12 months November, 1959, to October, 1960; this compares with 258 in the corresponding period in 1958–59 and 264 in 1957–58.

Mr. Matthews: asked the Minister of Transport how the record of accidents on Watling Street compares with other main roads in Warwickshire with a similar density of traffic.

Mr. Hay: There were 17 personal injury accidents per mile of road on the Watling Street during the first 11 months of 1960, compared with 15 per mile on the A.34, 14 per mile on the A.46 and 18 per mile on the A.452. Some of the routes lie in more heavily populated areas than others and, since adequate data on the character and density of traffic on the roads are not available, it is difficult to draw valid conclusions from comparisons of this kind.

Mr. Matthews: Is it fairly well proved that Watling Street is almost the most dangerous road in Warwickshire? Cannot something be done to speed up the improvement of this road between Atherstone and Wilnecote, at Wilnecote in particular?

Mr. Hay: I do not think that my hon. Friend was listening carefully to what I said at the end of my last Answer. It is difficult to draw valid conclusions as to the danger or lack of danger of certain stretches of road from comparisons between roads. We will get on with the improvements to the road as soon as we can.

M.1 Road (Additional Expenditure)

Mr. Oliver: asked the Minister of Transport how much additional expenditure on account of bad weather conditions was incurred by his Department to enable the contract work for the M.1 to be completed on time; what sums were paid and to whom for this specific work: by how much this expenditure exceeded the allowance of £400,000 referred to in question 2035 of the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Public Accounts Committee in the last Session of Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marples: As stated in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Civil Appropriation Accounts for 1958–59, the additional expenditure to counteract the effect of the weather and to permit of winter working amounted to about £1,500,000. This sum was paid to the contractors for the motorway, who carried out the additional works. It exceeds the amount referred to by the hon. Member by about £1,100,000.
Special measures were necessary because of the difficult soil conditions which were made worse by the abnormally wet weather of 1958. To close down the works would have seriously delayed the opening of the motorway and there could be no assurance as explained in answer 2050 that the final cost would have been less.

Mr. Oliver: I thank the Minister for that information, but will he be good enough to apply his mind to the Question? I want to know to whom the payment was made and the date on which it was made.

Mr. Marples: I can say that the payment was made to the contractor, but I cannot give the date without notice.

Mr. Oliver: Will the Minister be good enough to say who the contractors were? That is what the Question is about.

Mr. Marples: I do not want to specify a firm if I can possibly avoid it. I would rather say that it was paid to a contractor.

Mr. Oliver: That is not the point. Mr. Speaker, surely we are entitled to an answer. This is public money that has been spent. The Minister has said that over £1½ million was spent in addition to the contract price. I must press him to give an answer. To whom has the money been paid? The House is entitled to know.

Mr. Marples: It was paid to John Laing.

Headlights (Dazzle)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport how many accidents have been caused in the last twelve months as a result of motorists being dazzled by headlights.

Mr. Hay: I regret that the information is not available for the period asked for. In 1958 the police reported that dazzling by the lights of another vehicle was a contributory factor in 1,130 accidents involving motor cars.

Mr. Johnson: Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the book by Captain Popkess entitled "Traffic Control and Road Accident Prevention" and in particular to this statement
Drivers complained of being dazzled in one out of every eight accidents to service vehicles in January and February, 1946.
What action is being taken to try to solve this very serious problem of dazzle?

Mr. Hay: My attention has not been drawn to the book my hon. Friend mentions, but now that it has been I will have a look at it. The figures I have given this morning do not entirely bear out the conclusion drawn in the statement to which my hon. Friend has referred. The problem of dazzle is difficult of solution and any substantial breakthrough on the technical point seems still quite a long way away.

Vehicle Tests

Mr. G. Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport when he proposes to make the testing of ten-year-old vehicles compulsory.

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Transport at what date he proposes to make compulsory the testing of all motor vehicles over ten years old.

Mr. Marples: I propose to make the test compulsory on 15th February next.
Testing of some one-and-a-half million vehicles over ten years old will have to be spread over a period. The procedure will be that owners of vehicles registered before 1st January, 1937, must obtain their certificates before 15th February; those registered before 1st January, 1946, by 15th March; those registered before 1st January, 1949, by 15th April; and those registered before 15th May, 1951, by 15th May, 1961. Thereafter, every owner must be in possession of a certificate on and after the tenth anniversary of his vehicle's registration.
I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Motor Agents' Association, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Scottish Motor Traders' Association for their full co-operation.

Mr. Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of those interested in road safety will be very pleased with that Answer, in view of the high proportion of old vehicles which have been found to be defective in the pilot schemes?

Mr. Marples: Yes. This will play its part in road safety. Whilst it is not popular in some quarters, nevertheless if it reduces accidents it is well worth while.

Mr. Strauss: Is the Minister aware that between him and the industry there has been a delay of five years between the scheme being passed by the House of Commons and the date when it will be put into operation? Although everyone, including the Ministry, agrees that this is likely to save hundreds of lives a year and prevent thousands of accidents a year, no excuse has been offered by the Ministry for its long delay in putting the scheme into operation, except for two legal difficulties which arose, both of which were the responsibility of the Ministry.

Mr. Marples: It has been very difficult, but certainly there have been no discussions between myself and the industry going on for five years. I have not been

in my present job five years. The real point is that we have got a move on with it quickly. The scheme is now being brought into operation. We hope that everybody will co-operate by going as early as possible to get their vehicles tested.

Goods Vehicles (Abnormal Loads)

Mr. Boardman: asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce legislation to restrict the movement of road vehicles carrying exceptionally long and wide loads to the hours between 7 pm. and 7 a.m.

Mr. Hay: The police already have power to control the time of movement of vehicles carrying wide loads, and we have circulated proposals which would give them the same control over long loads. I think that we should leave this to their discretion in the light of local circumstances.

Mr. Boardman: Is it not the fact that despite the efforts of the police, these abnormal loads—abnormal lengths and abnormal widths—are cluttering up the roads at peak traffic hours? Is it not completely crazy that this practice should be allowed to continue?

Mr. Hay: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is not quite right in saying that these loads clutter up the roads at peak traffic hours. Wherever humanly possible, the routeing and timing of these loads are adjusted to ensure that that does not happen. However, as I say, we are discussing the whole problem with the interested authorities, and I think that my right hon. Friend will be in a position to make a statement very soon.

Mr. Boardman: If the hon. Gentleman doubts my statement on this subject, would he very much mind talking to the police in Lancashire and Cheshire and in that way finding out what is going on? In the North-West, this is a daily occurrence.

Mr. Hay: I would hesitate to answer for the police in Lancashire and the North-West. I can only say that my information is that, wherever possible, movement of these loads at peak traffic hours is avoided, in the interests not only of the traffic but of the police themselves.

Road Accidents and Alcohol

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Transport whether road accidents in which alcohol is a contributing factor are on the increase.

Mr. Marples: So far as can be judged from the official statistics, the number of accidents in which an intoxicated driver or rider is involved is increasing at a rather greater rate than the total for all road accidents.

Mr. Hayman: In view of the Minister's very serious Answer, and the appalling figures given in the newspapers this morning of those killed in October of this year, will he take strong steps to try to do something to improve this terrible position?

Mr. Marples: As the House knows, the Government are to bring in a Road Safety Bill which, I hope, will help. Prior to that, I can only say that the time when drinking really does cause accidents is Christmas time. It is these Christmas party arrangements that people have. Most of these accidents take place between 2 p.m. on Christmas Eve and 2 a.m. on Christmas morning. I have tried to make as many appeals as possible, advising people who drink not to drive, and I should like now to reinforce that advice.

Mr. Strauss: I should like to give every support to the Minister in that direction, but could I emphasise more than he has done the danger of the drunken pedestrian—a danger that is at least as great as that of the drunken motorist?

Mr. Marples: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me this opportunity also to emphasise that. When the Road Research Laboratory went into the figures for last Christmas, it was found that 56 per cent. of people involved in fatal accidents had been drinking, and that a large percentage were pedestrians. I think that if people go to these Christmas parties and find that they have had a little too much to drink they should ask someone—and they should make the selection—to help them home and look after them. If people have been drinking, they should get their wives or someone to drive them home, rather than drive themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Motorways (Tolls)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in the study given by his Department to the charging of tolls on new motorways; when the study began; and when it is expected to be completed.

Mr. Marples: The study into the question of tolls on future motorways began in October. I hope that it will be completed fairly early in the New Year.

Mr. Dodds: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people think it a very bad thing to start bringing tolls on to our roads? Should it not be our effort to get rid of tolls altogether, because they are costly to collect and traffic is held up in the process of collecting them? Why should we have to do this when the motorists pay so much money for running on the roads?

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member asks why we have to do this, but nothing has been decided yet. We are merely going into the question.

Morehard Row-Torrington Road

Mr. P. Browne: asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider upgrading the B.3220 Morehard Row-Torrington Road, in order to relieve traffic congestion on the A.30 road between Exeter and Okehampton.

Mr. Hay: We considered the classification of this road very recently, but a traffic census held in August did not justify a change in status. We are asking the Exeter Corporation to consider whether any improvement of the direction signing of the Torrington route is possible.

Mr. Browne: Would my hon. Friend consider the fact that when people go into a strange district they are apt to follow the red road, the A road? If this road were upgraded I believe that it would syphon off a great deal of traffic, both heavy and light, into the North Cornwall and Devon areas.

Mr. Hay: Yes. I was grateful to my hon. Friend for coming to see me the other day and explaining this matter in some detail. We are looking into it to see what can be done.

Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel (Tolls)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Transport the basis of his estimate that it will take about twenty years to repay the money advanced towards the cost of the Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel and to abolish tolls.

Mr. Marples: In their evidence before the House on 3rd April, 1957, during the passage of the Dartford Tunnel Act, 1957, the promoters, the Essex and Kent County Councils, estimated that an annual toll revenue of £1 million could be raised and that this would enable the advances made towards the cost of the tunnel to be amortised in twenty years.

Mr. Dodds: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the standard of tolls has yet been decided and, if not, how soon this is to be expected?

Mr. Marples: The standard of tolls has not yet been decided and the House will know as soon as it has, because I think it will need legislation. The main point about tolls is to try to obtain some simplified rate of tolls in order to help in their automatic and semi-automatic collection.

Rule of the Road

Mr. Robert Mathew: asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the increasing volume of motor traffic between the United Kingdom and the countries of Western Europe and the fact that the rule of the road varies, he will take steps to see that the possibility of an eventual change of the rule from left to right in this country is taken into account when planning traffic legislation and major road constructions, including, in particular, flyovers and cloverleafs, so as to reduce as far as possible both the cost and the difficulty of such change.

Mr. Marples: I think it is more important to concentrate on making our roads as safe as possible for traffic under the existing rule of the road. If, however, it were ever decided to change the rule from left to right neither our present traffic legislation nor the major road construction now being undertaken should give rise to any serious difficulty. Flyovers and cloverleafs are already designed symmetrically so far as site conditions permit.

Mr. Mathew: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether there are not particular difficulties connected with the conversion from right to left or left to right of clover-leafs? Is that taken into consideration when these very expensive constructions are being planned?

Mr. Marples: Yes. The constructions which are now being planned are quite symmetrical, and if it were decided to change the rule of the road, which would require an Act of Parliament, the new construction would be quite in keeping with that decision.

A.34, Bullington Cross

Mr. Denzil Freeth: asked the Minister of Transport when he hopes to begin work to eliminate the bends on A.34 just south of Bullington Cross, Hampshire.

Mr. Hay: We hope to eliminate the bends as part of the roundabout scheme, which will be started as soon as the engineering details are finalised and land acquired.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: While thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask whether he can say exactly how much progress has been made in the preparation of these plans and whether at the moment it is a case of his Ministry waiting for the county council to reply or the county council waiting for his Ministry?

Mr. Hay: I have checked this morning on the current position. It is that the land plans have been received by our divisional road engineer but we are still awaiting the engineering details from the county surveyor.

A.30 (Dual carriageways)

Mr. Denzil Freeth: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for providing dual carriageways on A.30 between the top of Kempshott Hill and the junction with A.33.

Mr. Hay: We intend eventually to provide dual carriageways on A.30 between the end of the Basingstoke Motorway, which will join A.30 near the top of Kempshott Hill, and its junction with A.33 at Popham Corner.
We hope soon to authorise work to start on the first section between Blind Man's Oak and Ganderdown.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: While thanking my hon Friend for that more hopeful reply, may I ask him how much extra, percentage-wise, it would have cost if this dual carriageway project had been carried out at the same time as the recent realignment of the road over the stretch mentioned? Is it not very often penny wise and pound foolish to have all the land acquired, and all the road implements on the site and then to remove them only to get them back at a later date?

Mr. Hay: I think I would prefer to see that question on the Paper.

Trunk Roads

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to remove major hindrances to the flow of traffic on important derestricted trunk roads.

Mr. Hay: Within the funds at our disposal, we are doing everything possible to improve the flaw of traffic on trunk roads by removing the worst hindrances such as sharp bends, level intersections and level railway crossings. We are also considering the possibility of extending the clearways system.

Mr. Emery: To carry out the substance of his reply, would my hon. Friend arrange for the linked traffic lights on the A.4 from Slough to the Slough Trading Estate to be turned off between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m.? This is a derestricted road. Does the Minister realise that during these hours there is next to no traffic crossing the A.4 and that these traffic lights are, more often than not, being "shot" by people who pay no regard to them at all.

Mr. Hay: I will look into that. I should say that if any proposal of that kind were put forward we should consult the local highway authority before doing anything.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask whether, in view of the very valuable work which is being done in Slough as a pioneer safety town in this country, he will discuss the matter with the Slough Safety Council before reaching a decision?

Mr. Marples: I think that is implicit in the Answer I have just given to my hon. Friend.

A.1 Road, Yorkshire (Dual Carriageways)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport if he will have signs indicating their lengths erected at each end of all sections of dual carriageways as is done on A.1 in Yorkshire.

Mr. Hay: The signs on A.1 in Yorkshire are temporary ones to help drivers to recognise which sections are completed whilst reconstruction work is taking place over a long strength of the road. We do not think such notices are necessary elsewhere, since adequate warning of change is normally given by the customary "Dual carriageway" and "Two way Traffic" signs.

Mr. Russell: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is very helpful when overtaking at night to know the length of a stretch of dual carriageway? Is he aware that two particularly short stretches on the A.5, not long after one gets on to it after leaving the M.1, are very deceptive? One might think that there is quite a long stretch in which to overtake, but it is not at all safe.

Mr. Hay: I will bear that in mind. I have no evidence at the moment to show that the customary warning signs which we use do not provide an answer to the problem.

Gower Street-Hampstead Road, London

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects the projected traffic lights at the junction of Gower Street and Hampstead Road, London, will be working.

Mr. Hay: The Tottenham Court Road and Gower Street one-way scheme, which my right hon. Friend announced last week, will make these signals unnecessary.
Plans for their installation have therefore been dropped.

M.1 Road (Petrol Stations)

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Minister of Transport to what extent under his


regulations motorists are prevented from buying British petrol from stations on the M.1.

Mr. Marples: There are no regulations preventing motorists from buying British petrol at the two service areas on the M.1. Petrol marketed by a British oil group is now on sale at both.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the Minister aware that it was about a year before Shell or B.P. sold any petrol at all there, and that it was necessary to buy American petrol because there was no other available? Was that part of the campaign to help the dollar or was it merely due to incompetence on the part of Shell and B.P.?

Mr. Marples: I will not go so far as to allege that. The Shell people and the service stations had difficulties over negotiations. Who was to blame I do not know, but that has now been solved, because British petrol is now on sale.

Great Cambridge Road (Lamp-posts)

Mr. Mackie: asked the Minister of Transport how many concrete lamp-posts have been knocked down in road accidents on the Great Cambridge Road between the North Circular Roundabout and the Bullsmoor Lane traffic signals during the last eighteen months.

Mr. Hay: Twenty-one were knocked down or damaged in that period.

Mr. Mackie: This is a five-mile stretch of road. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that there is something wrong with the siting of the lamp-posts when in that short period this number was knocked down? Does he not think that they should be put well clear of the pavement on the outside and then wired across and the lights hung from the top, in order to avoid any obstructions in the roadway? That should be general policy in new road building.

Mr. Hay: I have no information at the moment as to how these various pieces of damage were caused, but I will certainly look into the point, because this is a trunk road and the Minister has general responsibility for them. In this case, similar to the case raised a little earlier, we would have to consult with the local highway authority to make any changes which were felt to be necessary.

M.1 Road (Anti-Dazzle Fence)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give details of the disadvantages of using the expanded metal anti-dazzle fence on M.1.

Mr. Hay: The main disadvantage is that the experimental screen encourages drivers not to dip their headlights, so increasing the danger and discomfort from dazzle in the driving mirror from the headlights of following vehicles. The screen itself only gives protection against glare from approaching headlights. In certain conditions it may help to form snowdrifts. It also detracts from the appearance of the motorway.

Mr. Johnson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that glare from the headlights of a car following one is a much less serious matter than glare from the headlights of a car coming towards one? Cannot the former be largely mitigated by the use of a rear-view mirror, which prevents that type of glare?

Mr. Hay: That is a problem of design, which strictly speaking is not for my right hon. Friend. However, I think I should tell my hon. Friend that we are still monitoring this experiment. The Road Research Laboratory is engaged in carrying this work out for us, and we have by no means finally made up our minds about it. My hon. Friend asked for some of the disadvantages, and I have tried to state these.

Mr. G. Wilson: Is my hon. Friend aware that many motorists in fact like this dazzle screen and that there have been many expressions of approval of it?

Mr. Hay: I know that there are a number of conflicting viewpoints about it.

Mr. Paget: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I use this road very often and always look forward to this section enormously? I find it of tremendous advantage.

Mr. Hay: I am glad to hear it.

Mr. Hocking: Is my hon. Friend aware, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, that this is the only safe section of the road and that those of us who use it almost weekly, as some of us do, look forward


to it? If the Minister does not like the design of the metal screen, would it not be possible to plant a hedge, which would serve exactly the same purpose and tone in with the surroundings?

Mr. Hay: This is being considered as well. The Road Research Laboratory is monitoring an experiment in connection with this problem. The Laboratory will in due course let us have its views, and we shall be able to make up our minds.

Winchester Avenue, Heston

Mr. R. Harris: asked the Minister of Transport when work will be started on the new South Wales Radial Road in so far as the borough of Heston and Isleworth will be affected; and when he intends to make money available to enable the local authority to provide houses for the owners, occupiers and tenants of houses in Winchester Avenue, Heston, which will have to be pulled down to make way for the new road.

Mr. Hay: Construction of this section of the South Wales Motorway will be phased so as to ensure its completion simultaneously with that of the Great West Road viaduct. Work should start on the viaduct next spring, and on the remainder of the road about the end of 1961. I regret that I cannot yet give a precise date.
My hon. Friend has already been told in a letter that negotiations about rehousing have now been started.

Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend, or his right hon. Friend, regard himself as having any responsibility for ensuring that the alternative houses to which the present owners and occupiers in Winchester Avenue will have to move will be of approximately the same value as those in which they are now living, in order that they may not be put to very great extra expense?

Mr. Hay: It is a difficult problem—and a little difficult to deal with by way of Question and Answer in the House. My right hon. Friend does not possess statutory powers to rehouse people affected by road schemes. In fact, we usually manage to arrive at some accommodation with the local authorities, or by some other means but, without proper notice, I should not like to give a firm

answer to the point about the houses in Winchester Avenue. Perhaps my hon. Friend will have a word with me about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Electrification

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Transport how many new electric rail services under the capital development programme are to be opened in the near future.

Mr. Marples: The British Transport Commission plans to complete three electrification schemes in 1961. These are the electrification of the London, Tilbury and Southend line, and extensions to the electrification schemes already in operation on the Kent Coast and Glasgow suburban lines.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley - Davenport: Will my right hon. Friend not agree, from his own unfortunate experience in Manchester, that every time British Railways open a new rail service they celebrate the occasion by making all the trains later than ever? For the convenience of the public, therefore, would he consider opening these new services very early on Sunday morning?

Mr. Marples: Certainly. Especially as I know my hon. Friend is always at church at this time.

Mr. Strauss: When will the Minister be able to give us some information about the completion of the London to Crewe electrification?

Mr. Marples: A few days ago I received the revised estimates from the British Transport Commission. I will consider them, and I hope to make a fairly early announcement.

Mr. Albu: In view of the difficulties which have occurred in electrification recently, will the Minister assure the House that in the new plan of the railways there will be no weakening of the central technical control of the railway system so that the railway engineers are not put in a still worse competitive position vis-à-vis their suppliers?

Mr. Marples: That can be raised in the debate but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have that in mind because technically we want to try to


put these matters right. It is not a matter for rejoicing but we want to put it right as quickly as we can both in the interests of the travelling public and in the interests of the manufacturers.

Mr. Redhead: asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has received regarding changes in the capital allocation for the electrification of the railways.

Mr. Marples: I am not sure what changes the hon. Member has in mind. It was necessary to establish the British Transport Commission's provisional investment allocation for 1961 before a detailed programme for that year was available. This allocation took account, however, of known commitments, including electrification, and made provision for certain expenditure on other schemes. These latter, which have now been specified in a detailed programme for 1961, will be considered on their merits under the existing procedures and in the light of the four-year programme which the Commission has now submitted to me.

Mr. Redhead: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential for his proper and full consideration of any such proposals respecting electrification, that he should at once decide to widen the inquiry that he announced two days ago concerning the failure at Glasgow to include, at least, the similar experience on the Eastern Region where, after eighteen days of operation, an entirely new system broke down and it was necessary for British Railways to announce that all the engines supplied by the English Electric Company were to be returned to the makers for rectification of a serious fault.

Mr. Marples: The problem is not similar to the one in Glasgow. They have not found out the reason for the failure in Glasgow, whereas in the Eastern Region they think they have.

Mr Mackie: asked the Minister of Transport what capital expenditure he has authorised for further electrification of the railways.

Mr. Marples: No specific authorisation of capital expenditure has been made for railway electrification schemes other than those already in hand. Other electrification schemes included in the

Commission's 1961 programme are at present under consideration. I cannot yet say what investment may be authorised for these schemes which will have to be studied in the context of the Commission's proposed four-year programme which has just been submitted to me.

Mr. Mackie: Before the Minister authorises the expenditure of any further money on electrification, will he ensure that there is no further debacle such as there has been on the North London line in the last four weeks since it was opened? The hon. Member for Enfield, East has twice had to walk home because of breakdowns. The general public is sick of it. The Minister should examine this matter more fully. Although there were no explosions on the North London line, which is what happened in Glasgow, I want the Minister to be aware that there have been more breakdowns on the North London line than there were on the Glasgow line.

Mr. Marples: I share the general desire to get the electrification right. I hope that the technical failure recently experienced will be only temporary, but it was one of the reasons for the pause in the modernisation programme and the reassessment of it.

Mr. J. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Members of Parliament in North-East London have been receiving vast numbers of angry representations from their constituents about the chaos that has developed? We must all be profoundly concerned, not only about the inadequacy of the electrification which has taken place, but about the constant delays in making any definite decision on the Victoria Line, all of which very adversely affect our constituents. We hope that something definite and positive will be done about these matters in the very near future.

Mr. Marples: I will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Victoria Line Tube

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Transport the latest estimates of the cost of the Victoria Line tube.

Mr. Marples: The latest estimate is £55 million.

Mr. Albu: Does not the Minister think that the very serious complaints that hen. Members in the London area are getting about London Transport would be much relieved if the Government made up their mind to carry out the urgent and necessary scheme which Committee after Committee have reported would be a major contribution to relieving congestion on London's streets?

Mr. Marples: That may be so, but this scheme does present financial and other problems which can be assessed only in the light of the Government's general consideration of the British Transport Commission and its undertakings.

Mr. Mellish: There should be something more positive on this from the Minister. For years it has been delayed when it has been shown to be essential to public needs to get a decision.

Mr. Marples: I cannot say, because we are considering this in the light of the British Transport Commission's modernisation scheme. I thought that the publication of the White Paper yesterday would have gone some way to convincing hon. Members that the Government are treating the problem seriously.

New Stations and Buildings

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the large capital expenditure involved, whether he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission that designs for new stations and other buildings required by them should be submitted to his Department before final approval.

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Minister of Transport what capital expenditure he has authorised for the building of new railway stations; and whether he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission that plans for new stations should be submitted for his approval.

Mr. Marples: Since February, 1960, all proposals by the British Transport Commission for investment in projects costing more than £250,000 have been submitted to me for consideration. Since that date I have agreed to work proceeding on the reconstruction of six

major railway stations, on four of which work was already well advanced. The total expenditure involved is about £5¼ million. The design of buildings is, of course, a matter for the Commission, but the cost of particular designs may well be a subject for discussion. I do not think a general direction is either necessary or appropriate.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Will not my hon. Friend agree that the new railway station which has just been completed at Macclesfield is a public disgrace and that even the loyal railway staff are ashamed of it? Could he possibly assure the House that no station like this will be built in future?

Mr. Marples: I have not had the advantage of seeing the station, as my hon. Friend has, but I have no doubt that he is as usual very accurate in his information. I will pass his advice to the British Transport Commission, because they are responsible for the detailed design, and not me.

British Transport Commission (White Paper)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Transport at what time and on what day the final version of the Government White Paper on the future of the British Transport Commission reached Her Majesty's Stationery Office for printing.

Mr. Marples: At 6 p.m. on Wednesday, 14th December.

Mr. Noel-Baker: But in view of the fact that there was some time to spare, could not the right hon. Gentleman have gone further, instead of leaving the railway managements and public in suspense and ignorance about many of the major decisions that should have been taken a very long time ago? We still do not know what is to happen to the modernisation programme. The way in which this document was produced was highly unsatisfactory. Why did not the Minister make a statement in the House before the White Paper was issued? Why could not the House have had an opportunity to discuss the White Paper before the Recess? Why, above all, have we had no answer to the pressing problem of the future of the modernisation programme?

Mr. Marples: The Hon. Gentleman's Question asked when the final version reached the Stationery Office, and I have told him. It then took three working days to print the final draft, which is not, I think, unreasonable, and it was then published. The point we had in mind was to give the general public, the Opposition and everyone a chance to study the document before having a debate. It is no use having too short an interval between White Paper and debate with something of this magnitude.

Mr. Mellish: May I ask whether the Minister will change his mind on the question of now publishing the Stedeford Report, which led to this conclusion, bearing in mind that at might have said something nice about the British Transport Commission and other associated nationalised bodies? We should like to know if that was the case.

Mr. Marples: No, I am afraid that the Government will not change their mind in that respect. When the Stede-ford Group was set up, it was made quite clear from the outset that its inquiries would be confidential, because it was felt that more evidence could be got from interested people if their evidence was not published—

Mr. Mellish: Who were they?

Mr. Marples: The T.U.C. for instance, and others.
It would be a breach of confidence to publish it now.

Stedeford Report

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Transport when he proposes to introduce legislation to carry out the administrative and financial proposals arising from Her Majesty's Government's consideration of the Stedeford Report.

Mr. Marples: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to paragraph 61 of the White Paper "Reorganisation of the Nationalised Transport Undertakings" which I presented to Parliament yesterday.

Mr. Strauss: May we assume that the financial provisions contained in the White Paper will be dealt with in the Finance Bill this Session? Is it not a fact that If the proposals are not put into

operation this Session, it will mean a two-year delay before the structural change comes into operation? Does not the Minister realise that frequent change in the structure of the transport industry is, in itself, exceedingly harmful, but to have such fundamental reorganisation as that set out in the White Paper—which is both imprecise and highly controversial—kept in suspense for two years is bound to create confusion and uncertainty among those running the industry, and does create damage?

Mr. Marples: Well, I was told that there was uncertainty before the White Paper was produced, and that there would be uncertainty and confusion until it was produced. Now I am told there is uncertainty and confusion because it has been published. It is all most confusing. The real point is that the White Paper has been produced. It sets out some quite radical changes, I agree, and legislation will be required for a lot of them—those relating to statutory restrictions and so on—but quite a bit of the reorganisation can be carried out by the Commission under its present statutory duties. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that Questions about the Finance Bill are more properly addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Strauss: But does not the Minister really know whether the major part of the proposals of this White Paper is to be carried out this year—or is that, too, to be left for two years? Are not the financial provisions to be in the Finance Bill? Further, can the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my Question: does he not really think—is it not obvious—that to keep the organisational change in suspense for two years before it can be put into operation—which will happen—is bound to cause a great deal of damage to the transport industry?

Mr. Marples: Those items that require alteration in the law have to go through the usual processes that Parliament normally adopts. Very complicated, complex and comprehensive legislation will be wanted in some cases, but quite a good deal of the reorganisation can be carried out by the British Transport Commission under its statutory duties. I have tried to explain to the right hon. Gentleman that there may not be delay


in a lot of the measures we can introduce.

Mr. Jay: Surely, the Minister can tell us whether the financial reorganisation requires legislation and, if it does, how and when we shall get it?

Mr. Marples: I think that that point is better addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will be in charge of those provisions.

Mr. Jay: But the Minister represents the Government in this matter. Does he know what is the position in regard to financial reorganisation? If he does, why does he not tell us?

Mr. Marples: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman will have to put that question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because my right hon. and learned Friend is now considering the precise way of implementing the White Paper.

At end of Questions—

SOUTHERN RHODESIA CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. G. M. THOMSON: To ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement about the progress of the talks on the Southern Rhodesian Constitution.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The Southern Rhodesia Constitutional Conference met on 16th and 17th December and discussed matters of procedure, after which it adjourned. Its meetings will be resumed in January in Southern Rhodesia, and I am proposing myself to go there for this purpose towards the end of the month.
In the interval, preparatory discussions between the Southern Rhodesian delegates will be held under the chairmanship of Sir Edgar Whitehead, with the British High Commissioner attending as an observer. This should enable more rapid progress to be made when the full conference resumes under my chairmanship.

Mr. Thomson: May I thank the Minister for coming to the House to

answer this Question this morning and offer him congratulations from this side of the House on succeeding for the second time in a few weeks in persuading the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia to include Mr. Joshua Nkomo, the representative of the National Democratic Party, in these discussions? May I also ask him whether he is aware that on this side of the House we view with some anxiety the decision to transfer the conference to Southern Rhodesia, because we believe that the political and racial atmosphere there is not such as encourages either the European or the African leaders to arrive at a constructive settlement, on which, in the long run, the future of Central Africa depends?

Mr. Sandys: I should like to say, in regard to the hon. Gentleman's congratulations, that these fortunate arrangements that have been arrived at between Sir Edgar Whitehead and Mr. Nkomo and his party were arrived at by direct discussions between them, in which I did not take any part. With regard to the place for the further meetings, all I would say is that the decision to hold the next series of meetings in Rhodesia has been taken for purely practical reasons. It is easier to move me to Southern Rhodesia than it is to move about 25 delegates and advisers over here. It does not mean that all further meetings of the conference will necessarily take place in Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Brockway: Despite the right hon. Gentleman's modest disclaimer, may I ask him whether he is aware that back benchers as well as those on the Front Benches will wish to congratulate both him and the Secretary of State for the Colonies on having advanced matters so far as they have gone? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that many hon. Members of this House will hope that the conference in Southern Rhodesia will be able to repeat what happened in Nyasaland, and what is likely to happen in Northern Rhodesia, in attaining an African majority in Southern Rhodesia, where the Africans are in such a large majority; and whether it is not the case that the whole future of Central Africa will depend on an African democracy in Southern Rhodesia?

Mr. Sandys: I have noted the hon. Member's point of view, but he will not expect me to anticipate the outcome of the discussions.

Mr. Stonehouse: May I ask the Secretary of State two questions arising out of his statement? Firstly, what is being done about the representation of the non-racial National Democratic Party? Will it be increased from the two which have already been agreed? Secondly, do we understand that the constitutional conference has been called at the invitation of the United Kingdom, and, therefore, the final session will be held in London under his own chairmanship?

Mr. Speaker: I rather think that the first part of that question raises a matter for Which there is no Ministerial responsibility, and, if so, it would be out of order; namely, the constitution of the representation at two conferences.

Mr. Sandys: All that I would say at present is that it is not for me to say what is the correct representation for any particular party or group. Of course, since there will be no voting at a conference of this kind, what really matters is that every group and party should have sufficient representation to enable its point of view to be adequately presented to the conference. The question of numbers is not so important. As regards the future arrangements for the final meeting, to which the hon. Member referred, we are still a long way from the final meeting, but any operative session will be held under the chairmanship of myself or some other United Kingdom Minister.

Mr. J. Dugdale: In welcoming the Minister's decision to go himself to Southern Rhodesia, may I ask him whether we are to understand that he will take part in the conference there, and, if he does, will he take the Chair?

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir. I said so in my original Answer.

BILLS PRESENTED

WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES

Bill to make further provision for financial assistance for the white fish and herring industries (including advances to the White Fish Authority), presented by Mr. Christopher Soames; supported by Mr. R. A. Butler, Mr. Maclay, Sir E. Boyle, Mr. Leburn, and Mr. Vane; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 24th January and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

SHERIFFS' PENSIONS (SCOTLAND)

Bill to amend the law with respect to the pensions attributable to the office of sheriff and salaried sheriff-substitute, to regulate the age of retirement from such offices and to regulate the time at which payment may be made of those pensions and of the salaries attaching to the said offices, presented by Mr. Maclay; supported by the Lord Advocate, Sir E. Boyle, and Mr. Brooman-White; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 24th January and to be printed. [Bill 58]

CROFTERS (SCOTLAND)

Bill to make fresh provision with respect to the reorganisation, development and regulation of crofting in the crofting counties of Scotland; to authorise the making of grants and loans for the development of agricultural production on crofts and on holdings comparable in value and extent to crofts; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Maclay; supported by the Lord Advocate, Sir E. Boyle, and Mr. Leburn; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 24th January and to be printed. [Bill 59]

BOXING

12.7 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit professional boxing.
I have sufficient faith in the good sense and understanding of hon. Members on both sides of the House to know that my critical attitude to boxing will receive some measure of support. I would recall to hon. Members who were here about 10 years ago that when I raised this matter then the opposition was such that I could not make myself heard. I believe that public opinion is changing, and one reason is due to the fact that television has enabled people to see in their own living rooms two men engaged in violent combat, and consequently this has focussed attention on the subject that I am raising today.
Supporters of boxing argue that other sports, including Rugby football, are equally dangerous. This argument cannot survive examination. In the first place, the primary objective in football is to score points and not to render one's opponent insensible. Of all the major sports, boxing occupies a special position, since the aim is to produce injuries, more particularly to the brain. In the limited time at my disposal, I want to emphasise that I am not alone in my attitude. I have the most powerful medical support. I could quote eminent people in the medical profession, but I will limit myself today to a quotation from the leader in The Lancet, a famous medical journal, in June, 1959. That leader stated:
Boxing has been condemned by official ringside judges, by sports writers and by boxers of the first rank, as well as by responsible medical writers. And yet not only is nothing done to end this evil, but official bodies such as the B.B.C. extend the spectacle to ever-widening audiences, including children.
The medical opinion against boxing is now so strong that as doctors we have a clear duty to fight for its total abolition.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Dr. Summerskill: If I might just conclude this part of my argument—

Mrs. Braddock: Would the right hon. Lady also read the letter from Mr. J. W. Graham in reply to the article in the Lancet?

Dr. Summerskill: I am trying to quote some absolutely objective authorities. A few skilled experts may escape, but after about fifty fights in a few years the ordinary fighter begins to show unmistakable signs of deterioration. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite are giving me my case without my having to make a speech. The boxer then fails to time his blows properly because the damage to his brain has caused cerebral atrophy. His defence is inadequate and he is soon a back number. The great tragedy, however, is his loss of mental health, his capacity to concentrate and, very often, to co-ordinate his movements and to hold down a responsible job. No amount of medical inspection can make the sense organs less vulnerable or the bone of the temple any thicker.
It is generally agreed that no instrument has yet been invented which can detect the small haemorrhages and the torn fibres of the brain which a boxer sustains in the course of a fight and which, if repeated over the years, produce the condition of punch-drunkenness. When the symptoms appear it is too late to hope that a rest will result in a cure. These injuries do not heal and the destruction of the brain cells is permanent. The frontal lobes which are damaged in this way are those parts which control man's highest functions, namely, his power to co-ordinate his movements, to restrain his impulses and to exercise his power of self-control.
It is argued that individuals watching fights which are accompanied by hysterical yells as the pace quickens and the contestants show signs of wear and tear are worthy men who should be allowed to enjoy their leisure as they think fit. The fact is that the circumstances of a fight unleash sadistic impulses, which are revealed in the ugly behaviour which so often accompanies a prize fight. I would remind the House that cock-fighting was prohibited not for the sake of the cock but because such a display caters to the basest instincts and is calculated to deprave the onlookers.
Can anybody sensibly suggest that the screaming crowd round a boxing ring


is having implanted in it the fine qualities of pluck, endurance and restraint? We are told by those in this business that the sole object in view is to give the spectators a display of a sport regulated by rules calculated to ensure the maximum enjoyment of boxing techniques. If that is so, why are these bouts accompanied in the newspapers and on the radio by a commentary deliberately phrased to emphasise the brutal element?
I appeal to hon. Members on both sides to recognise that it is of the utmost importance to control by example the destructive impulse. Our prisons today are overfull of young men guilty of physical assault. This is not a problem peculiar to Britain. Other countries have recognised the harmful effect of these displays. Iceland has led the world and has set an example by making boxing illegal, and powerful anti-boxing movements in Sweden and Belgium have succeeded in introducing certain regulations. One cannot speak too strongly about the pernicious example set to adolescent youth who week after week in their own homes watch violent scenes glamourising brutality which yet have official sanction.
Has not the time arrived when Parliament should take steps to protect our young people from the men who organise these displays on highly profitable business lines? Today I am asking permission to introduce a Bill in order that the whole question may be examined.

12.16 p.m.

Lieut. - Colonel W. H. Bromley -Davenport: While I listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), I could not help feeling that she was living in the past—in a bygone age. The conditions she has described may have existed forty years ago, when there was no British Boxing Board of Control, but they simply do not exist today. As a member of the Board, the best thing I can do is to describe how it controls boxing and avoids all the evils alleged by the right hon. Lady.
The Board has authority to issue licences, at its absolute discretion, to all persons connected in any way with professional boxing—boxers, promoters, managers, referees, trainers, seconds, and so on—and without a current licence no one can officiate in any capacity at a

professional boxing tournament. The Board functions from London and is assisted in its duties by eight area councils, spread over the whole country and Northern Ireland. Each council has an expert medical staff.
Every applicant for a boxer's licence is subjected to a comprehensive medical examination, and if he is fit he is granted a licence. Boxers must be examined before and after every contest, and if a boxer is knocked out he must be medically examined before he even contracts to box again. Unless a boxer gets a certificate of absolute fitness from his area medical officer his licence is suspended until he is fit, and, if necessary, it is withdrawn altogether. In the event of a knock-out, all officials have a complete knowledge of first aid.
There are two types of knock-out. There is the reflex, and there is the state of concussion resulting from a series of blows. All the evidence available shows that recovery from the former is complete and almost immediate and that, with rest and abstention from boxing, complete recovery also takes place in the latter case. Nevertheless, we know that rare cases occur when even the medical experts may pass a boxer fit although he is not quite fit and may be suffering from some very mild form of concussion. If that happens, the moment he fights again the expert from the B.B.B.C. who attends will detect at once that the man is not quite fit, and the result will be immediate suspension. In any case, after rest complete recovery takes place, and it is unfounded speculation to say that the evil effects may show themselves years later.
Other measures we have to control boxing are the limiting of the number of contests in which boxers may take part and the limiting of the number of rounds in which young people can take part during a contest. There is the prohibition of foul blows in the ring such as those to the back of the head or the kidneys. These measures, together with instructions to referees about stopping fights in time to avoid unnecessary or undue punishment—which, incidentally, have the full support of the so-called brutal public—have eliminated the possibility of any permanent brain damage.
To sum up the arguments against the contention of those who oppose professional boxing on the ground of possible


serious injury, I will quote these simple figures. Among nearly 100,000 boxers during the past 14 years there have been only four fatal accidents and only six serious eye injuries. As regards delayed or permanent injury due to concussion, I challenge the right hon. Lady to produce examples of such cases. If she can, for every example that she produces to support her case the British Boxing Board of Control will produce 1,000 against, provided that she pays for the expenses.
Why single out boxing from other sports which people enjoy? What about motor racing and the gallant drivers of racing vehicles who kill or damage themselves and who sometimes even kill spectators? What about their multiple injuries? What about swimming? I have known people to be so inconsiderate as to go in for a bathe in the sea and drown themselves in the briny. Are we to stop that sort of thing? What about mountain climbing? There are people who risk their lives in order to go and look at the top of a mountain. They need not go and do that. I can tell them in advance what they will find when they get there; all they will see will be rocks and snow. One could go on for ever quoting examples of sports which are dangerous to the public. If we go far enough and follow the thing to its logical conclusion, playing for absolute safety, we shall finish by being allowed to play only dumb-crambo and tiddleywinks.
There is another aspect to the subject, the benefit to the young. Boxing keeps them fit. It keeps them off the streets. It takes them away from their flick-knives and smoking and puts them into the gymnasium. It is there that they develop self-reliance, self-control, courage and chivalry, and the ability to keep their tempers. They learn another very important thing, that if they have to fight they must fight in one place only, in the ring, against an evenly matched opponent.

Boxing is the most popular sport on television and I refute the right hon. Lady's suggestion that our public is becoming sadistic. I have done my best to show how we on the British Board of Boxing Control avoid all the evils alleged by the right hon. Lady and to defend professional boxing which others are trying to destroy. How easy it is to pull something down. It is not so easy to build it up again.

Mr. F. A. Burden: What about amateur boxing?

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley - Davenport: I want professional boxing to stand on its own merits.
Members of the British Boxing Board of Control have long practical experience in boxing and they are assisted by some of the best brains in the medical profession. Not one of us would control a sport which we felt was harmful to others. Although I know how genuine and sincere the right hon. Lady is, it is the "holier than thou" attitude which we find so nauseating.
As for the medical profession itself, every year the hospitals hold their own boxing championships, and these are attended by all branches of the medical profession. Would medical men support these shows if they thought that they were harmful to others? As my final friendly little blow across the Chamber, I will now cite the instance of the Annual Convention of the British Medical Association this year which was attended by some of the best medical brains in the world. A proposal similar to that put forward by the right hon. Lady was overwhelmingly defeated on that occasion. I ask hon. and right hon. Members of all parties in the House of Commons to do likewise today.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motion for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House Divided: Ayes 17, Noes 120.

Division No. 32.]
AYES
[12.26 p.m.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Millan, Bruce
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Paget, R. T.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Hayman, F. H.
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Whitlock, William


Houghton, Douglas
Plummer, Sir Leslie



Mackie, John
Redhead, E. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stonehouse, John
Dr. Summerskill and


Manuel, A. C.
Swain, Thomas
Mr. Robert Edwards.




NOES


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Barlow, Sir John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Biggs-Davison, John
Hastings, S.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bossom, Clive
Hay, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hendry, Forbes
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Partridge, E.


Bryan, Paul
Hiley, Joseph
Pearson, Frank (Ciltheroe)


Bullard, Denys
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pott, Percivall


Burden, F. A.
Hocking, Philip N.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Holt, Arthur
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Channon, H. P. G.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Rippon, Geoffrey


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Russell, Ronald


Corfield, F. V.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Sharples, Richard


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Shepherd, William


Critchley, Julian
Kershaw, Anthony
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kirk, Peter
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Cunningham, Knox
Leather, E. H. C.
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Currie, G. B. H.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Speir, Rupert


Dance, James
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Studholme, Sir Henry


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Teeling, William


Deedes, W. F.
Longbottom, Charles
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


de Ferranti, Basil
Loveys, Walter H.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Doughty, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McLaren, Martin
Vane, W. M. F.


Eden, John
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Elliot, Capt. W. (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Wall, Patrick


Emery, Peter
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Watts, James


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fisher, Nigel
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Whitelaw, William


Gibson-Watt, David
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Godber, J. B.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wise, A. R.


Goodhew, Victor
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Woodnutt, Mark


Gower, Raymond
Mellish, R. J.



Gresham Cooke, R.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Neave, Airey
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport




and Mrs. Braddock.

Motion made, Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members will notice that we have lost some time for

the Adjournment debates. I thought that the fairest way of dealing with the matter would be to prune each subject a little, with the aid of the House, so that we may restore the fair proportion of time.

NORTH OF SCOTLAND HYDROELECTRIC BOARD

12.35 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I propose this morning to say a number of unseasonable things about a number of people in and outside Scotland. However, perhaps the House will permit me to begin by offering our Christmas congratulations to the Joint Under-Secretary of State and to his wife on the birth of a son to them this morning. We apologise for bringing him down to the House on such an occasion.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: On behalf of Scottish back bench Members on this side of the House, may I echo the hon. Gentleman's felicitations to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Thomson: I want to deal with the demands that are being made that the Glen Nevis Hydro-Electric Scheme should not be carried out and that all future hydro-electric development in Scotland should be stopped. It is astonishing and tragic in some ways that such a campaign should be organised at all and astonishing that one should have to take up the time of the House of Commons in defending hydro-electric development, because the affairs of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board were gone into very thoroughly by this House a few years ago. Our own Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, under a Conservative Chairman, reported in 1957 in these words:
… the 'history of the Board, developing from small-scale private enterprises to the point at which it now supplies power to 85 per cent. of the households and 55 per cent. of die farms in its area—at the same time assisting greatly in the industrial development of the Highlands—is remarkable and the Committee were impressed by it.… In the fourteen years of its existence, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has impressively justified the foresight of its progenitors.
I should have thought that that decisive verdict would be enough to prevent the kind of frontal assault which is being made on the work of the Hydro-Electric Board in Scotland.
I have emphasised that this is not in any way a party matter. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod), who apologises that it is impossible for him to be here today, told me yesterday that if there had never

been a Hydro-Electric Board his constituents in remote places like Torridon and Applecross would still be living in the age of oil lamps. On the last occasion that this matter came before the House an effort to stop a previous scheme was decisively rejected by the House by 122 votes to two. From where, then, are the objections to the new scheme and further development coming? Who is running the campaign? Are the objections coming from the elected local authorities in the area? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker!
The two main local authorities connected with the Nevis scheme, Inverness County Council and the Fort William Council, are both behind the scheme. The truth is—and this is why I have raised the matter today—that the real headquarters of this campaign against Highland development are not in the Highlands or even in the Lowlands of Scotland. They are to be found in London, in the offices of an organisation known as "Aims of Industry." The title may be familiar to some hon. Members. It is a typical example of one of the great anonymous empires which are so characteristic of the times in which we live and whose job behind the scenes is to try to manipulate and, indeed, manufacture public opinion in this country. It is a propaganda organisation operated on behalf of big business. It boasts that last year it gained 150,000 column inches of free editorial space in 900 journals in this country. According to one book on the last General Election, it spent £107,000 in the twelve months before the General Election on assisting the Government's return to power.
One of the things which the Highlands have no shortage of is committees, commissions and organisations of all sorts. It is said that there are twenty official and semi-official committees in the Highlands, but I have no knowledge that "Aims of Industry" is one of the organisations helping the Highlands. Who, then, is "Aims of Industry" helping in running this campaign? What is the link between this organisation and the campaign against hydro-electric development in Scotland? "Aims of Industry" is helping the Highland lairds and landlords, and also the big business interests who finance this organisation.
As far as my investigations go, the link is to be found in the person of a gentleman known as Colonel W. H. Whitbread. He is an English brewer and a Highland laird. He is a member of the Council of "Aims of Industry". He is a very busy man. As far as I can discover, he has 25 directorships, but none of them is in Scotland or in the Highlands or is in any way helping Highland development. He may be known to some hon. Members in this House, although not to me, as the chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the Brewers' Society. He has three homes, one in Surrey, one in Wiltshire, and one in Ross-shire.
I do not confess to know how much time he manages to devote to his Ross-shire home, but the significant thing about the estate which he occupies at Letterewe, in Wester Ross, is that this estate is at present being surveyed by the Hydro Board to ascertain its suitability for hydro-electric development. Colonel Whitbread's estate is in the Loch Maree area, one of the loveliest areas of Scotland. It is scheduled for hydro development under the Board's Fada-Fionn-Maree scheme. This scheme will make another 125 million units of electricity available in the remote north-west of Scotland, where the problem of depopulation is particularly serious.
The public is entitled to know whether, to put it bluntly, this rich English brewer is using his high-powered London propaganda organisation to conduct this public campaign against Highland hydro-electric development as a convenient method of preserving his own private landed interests and those of his friends. We have a lurid history of absentee highland landlordism betraying Highland welfare over the centuries, but it looks to me as if Colonel Whitbread is adding a chapter of his own to this story.
How is "Aims for Industry" conducting its campaign? First, it had to find out where the Highlands were, so it sent an emissary—I am told, a Mr. T. A. Cutbill, who describes himself as editorial director of "Aims for Industry", from Fetter Lane, London. Mr. Cutbill visited Inverness. According to my information, his purpose was to discover and whip up pockets of dissatisfaction with the Hydro Board. He may, perhaps, be consoled to know that he is the latest of

a long but rather ignoble lineage of agents sent up from London to divide and stir up dissatisfaction among the Highlanders. Anyhow, those investigations were made.
Then, the "Aims for Industry" organisation went into that operation at which it is particularly expert. These hidden persuaders started their campaign to brainwash the citizens of Scotland. Since midsummer, they have been supplying the Press with ready-made articles and so-called editorial comments, which have been used in whole or in part by local papers in the area of the Hydro Board. There can be no doubt that very few of the letters which have appeared in the Press supporting the attack on the Board have come from within the Board's area. There is reason to believe that some of the letters which have come from within the Board's area were not written by the individuals who signed them but were passed on to them from outside the area of the Board by friends who asked for signatures.
There was a need on the part of "Aims for Industry" for some sort of Scottish faÇade, what we know in political jargon as a front organisation, so "Aims for Industry" set up what is called the Scottish Power Investigation Committee, of which the ubiquitous Colonel Whitbread is a member. Its chairman is a Glasgow solicitor. One of the more unusual organisations which is a member of this committee is the National Union of Manufacturers. I do not know how strong the National Union of Manufacturers is in the Highland areas. I wish it were a great deal stronger. We could do with a great many manufacturers in the Highlands providing jobs. At the moment, however, I somewhat suspect its membership of this Committee. Amongst other individual members are Mr. Michael Baillie of Dochfour, a Highland laird who, in the Inverness County Council, tried to get an investigation made into hydro developments in Scotland and was defeated in his own county council by 32 votes to 7. There is also Major Macdonald-Buchanan who owns an estate at Scatwell, near Dingwall.
Supporting these landed gentry is the Scottish Landowners Federation. "Aims for Industry" should be congratulated by its subscribers upon enrolling such an influential pressure group. It was the Scottish Landowners Federation that


launched the salmon poaching campaign on which, in due course, the Government gave way and which was followed by salmon legislation. Then, it was the Scottish Landowners Federation which played a big part in the pressure culminating in the Government producing the Deer (Scotland) Act. I hope we shall have an assurance from the Government today that the Scottish Landowners Federation's agitation against hydroelectricity will meet with a decisive refusal from the Government to give way on this issue.
I was pained to discover that amongst the organisations associating themselves with this Committee was my own old love, the Scottish Youth Hostels Association. It is somewhat unusual to find it in alliance with the Scottish Landowners Federation. I have no doubt that the mountaineers, climbers and walkers of Scotland meet occasional irritations from the Hydro Board. I should not have thought that they would compare with the dangers of getting shot in mistake for a stag during the shooting season.
I speak as a Lowlander who is a keen hill walker. As hon. Members will appreciate, there are many times in this House when one sighs to get out of here and away to the Scottish hills. But it is not right for me to ask that the Highlands should be sterilised into a sort of national park to suit my weekend convenience and my holidays. I am consoled to be supported in this view by the Lochaber Mountaineering Club, which is the only one of these outdoor organisations within the area of the Board. I am also consoled that the Scottish Tourist Board should be lending its support to the Glen Nevis scheme.
On the question of amenities, I recollect that when the Hydro-Electric Board was developing Pitlochry, in the neighbourhood of Dundee, there were the most dreadful fears of what would happen there. Today, as a result of the work of the Hydro Board, Pitlochry is a tourist attraction on a much greater scale than ever in the past.
I have looked as closely as I can into the amenity arguments about Glen Nevis and I have studied the evidence of a report which has been made by the

county planning officer of Inverness, Mr. Calder. As far as I can see, the fears on amenity grounds have been, at the very least, greatly exaggerated. It is true that the walkers and hill climbers will find that a waterfall in the area will be cut in half, but it will be cut in half from a waterfall of 400 ft. to one of 250 ft., which still leaves a considerable waterfall and one which will now tumble picturesquely into a loch instead of merely into a meadow area. The walkers will lose a path, but they will get a new path and a new hut built for them by the Hydro Board. The motorists—those who are not active or interested enough to climb up on top—will find in Glen Nevis, as they have found in other hydro schemes, that their opportunity to enjoy Highland scenery will be greatly enhanced by means of the hydro scheme through the extension of the road which is to be constructed in connection with it.
On the question of amenity, I wish to refer to what I feel is the folly of the National Trust for Scotland in associating itself with this campaign. The National Trust for Scotland is an estimable body with worthy aims. It is one which depends a great deal upon public good will. It is wrong for it to get itself mixed up in this kind of political controversy. I have with me its latest bulletin, for December, the "Newsheet of the National Trust for Scotland". It is a tissue of inaccuracies on this matter. I simply do not understand the attitude of the Earl of Wemyss. I assume that most of the stately homes, which the Trust does good work in preserving, enjoy the benefits of electricity. I commend to the Earl of Wemyss words from the Highlands which, perhaps, carry more weight than mine. I quote from the Inverness Courier, which commented:
Highland amenity is not just confined to scenery; it also embraces the modern amenity of electric light and power, an amenity without which the glens of the rural Highlands will, without any doubt, become more and more depopulated, the haunt only of the grouse, the red deer, and the landed proprietors and their wealthy sporting tenants and guests.
As well as the amenity arguments, economic arguments have been brought against the Board's case. I propose to leave the details of these to other hon. Members who may have the good fortune to speak. I merely want to say this.
One of the things which is being said is that we should stop Highland hydroelectricity and get power from coal in the Lowlands. I do not think that this is sensible on economic grounds, but I would make this historical comment, that all too often in the past the welfare of the Highlands has been sacrificed to the interests of the industrial Lowlands. I speak as a Lowlander. I hope that in this case history will not be allowed to repeat itself, but that the Government will tell us that they have every intention of going ahead with the steady expansion of hydro-electricity, which is the only way in which the remoter consumers in the Highlands can go on enjoying the benefits of electricity. I yield to no one in my desire to preserve the beauties of the Highland scene, but I believe that what is far more important is to preserve the welfare of the Highland people, a task to which the Board has made a notable contribution. I hope it will be allowed to go on doing it.

12.51 p.m.

Mr. Neil McLean: I am sure that all of us who live in the Highlands are grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thompson) for raising this matter in the House today. There has undoubtedly been a fairly widespread campaign in the Press, organised, perhaps, by the "Aims of Industry" and other people, which has led to a good deal of inaccurate, sentimental, loose thinking and loose logic, letters in the Press about hydro-electric schemes. The hon. Member has put the matter in its true proportion and I should like to associate myself with a good deal of what he said about the Glen Nevis scheme.
I think that when he was dealing with the campaign he allowed his natural Socialism to get the better of him. Just as the late Mr. McCarthy in America always saw a Communist under every bed, so the hon. Member seems to see either a brewer or a Scottish landowner under every bed. I should like to correct him, if I may, on one matter. He said that it was the landowners who were the ones who thought up and pushed forward and organised the pressure group to put through the Deer (Scotland) Act. I can assure him that it was very much the other way around. There was a great

deal of opposition from the landowners, and not least from certain landowners who may be associated with this present "Aims of Industry" campaign, and they opposed the Measure. They perhaps succeeded in holding it up for a time. I think it was the N.F.U. which was keenest that that Measure should be pushed through.
Now I should like to say a few words about the Glen Nevis scheme which is in my constituency. The glen is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful and unique glens in the whole of the British Isles, and all of us who live in the countryside hate to see the natural beauty of it changed and prefer it should be left as it is. On the other hand, people who say that hydro-electric schemes spoil the beauty of the glens should go to look at some of the glens where schemes have been carried out. They are still remarkably beautiful. I do not like interfering with nature, but to say that the schemes completely spoil the beauty of the glens is quite inaccurate. It is very difficult sometimes in discussing the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and hydro-electricity schemes in the Highlands not to take sides violently one way or the other. It is the nature of people in the Highlands: he who is for me is for me, and he who is against me is against me. Very often the actual facts in these matters get completely out of proportion owing to the strength of feeling on both sides.
I personally feel, having discussed the matter with a number of people living in the area and being in touch with the local authorities, that the amenities in Glen Nevis will not be unduly adversely affected. Most of the local people also feel that, although the scenery may be changed slightly, the scheme will not really affect amenities, and the local authorities have, I believe, got an assurance from the Board that they will get their water supplies and so on.
I do feel, however, that there has been so much heat generated by this matter that it would be in the interests of the public as a whole, and, indeed, of the Board and of everyone concerned, if the Secretary of State were to set up an inquiry into this scheme, so that objections could be made in public. If this inquiry were held people could put forward their views in public and be confronted with


the whole of the facts, and I believe that that would clear the air very much.
There is one question I would ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State, and it is on the question of cost. This scheme, I understand, costs about £4¼ million and will take four years to complete. The scheme is before Parliament; we have all had a chance to study it; but I think that with these schemes it is the duty of Parliament and the Secretary of State to look very carefully at the costs and to see whether they are justified in spending that amount of money. I personally think that on examination it will be found that they are justified, but I think we ought to be very careful to look at each of these schemes on its merits.
It is also very important to note that sometimes when figures are put forward the estimated costs are found to be far less than the actual costs, and I think that if we could have the correct figures of the estimated and actual costs of these schemes which the Board has carried out and the figures for the schemes in hand and compare them it would be a good thing for the public in general, because they would know how the money has been and is being spent.
I would like to pay a tribute to what the Board has done in the Highlands and is doing for the Highlands. It has brought electricity to so many of the outlying parts of the Highlands which would never have had it otherwise, and the first chairman, Mr. Tom Johnston, did a marvellous job, and the present chairman of the Board, Lord Strathclyde, is also doing a splendid job, in enabling the Board to go forward with its work.
I end, if I may, with one slight note of criticism of the Board, and it is that I believe that it ought to pay more attention at this phase of its history to what one may call consolidating the position. It has connected up many farms and outlying places, but there is still a small nucleus in some areas where there is as yet no electricity and this is a great hardship to the people there.
I know of several centres in Badenoch and Skye where the bringing of electricity would be of immense benefit, but the Board often asks some small crofter or farmer to pay £400 or £500 or £700

for the cost of initial installation, and it is far too much for them. I think that the Board—I believe it is doing this—should examine very carefully the methods by which it can bring electricity to the small pockets of the countryside where there is not yet electricity. It might be entirely a matter for the Board to finance the work, or perhaps the Secretary of State himself would be prepared to subsidise the bringing of electricity to those uneconomic areas, but this is a matter to which I would call the attention of the Joint Under-Secretary of State, because I believe it is of the utmost importance to the Highlands. After all, one of the Board's tasks was not only to produce more electricity there for the whole country, but to help the welfare of the people living through the development of the Highlands.

12.58 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan: I shall restrict myself to making only two points, because I know the Joint Under-Secretary of State wants some time in which to reply to the debate. On the point which has just been made by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. N. McLean), the question arises whether or no the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board should continue to be saddled with the responsibility of the high capital costs involved in supplying some of the very remote areas. We have to appreciate that this part of the Board's task is increasingly difficult, because the amount of money required to extend the supply of electricity to some of the isolated communities which are still without it is a tremendous amount compared with any charges that are likely to be recovered from the consumption of electricity.
I think the history of the Board over the last ten or fifteen years has been a remarkable example of self-help in Scat-land, since all this work has been done without a public subsidy. Let us face it, the consumers in some of the bigger centres of population which are served by the Board, for instance, Dundee and Aberdeen, have been helping to pay for electricity supplies to the more remote areas in the Highlands. The hon. Member for Inverness, referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), mentioned his


Socialism. I think that this electricity supply work is a remarkable example of Socialist in practice, and I would commend it to the hon. Member from that point of view.
My hon. Friend has done a considerable public service in exposing the false nature of the present campaign against the Board—this so-called Scottish Power Investigadon Committee. We have had for a considerable time in one form or another a continual campaign of denigration of the efforts of the Hydro-Electric Board. There is a constant trickle and sometimes a stream of letters in the Press complaining about the Board, some from the point of view that hydroelectricity is uneconomic and making comparisons with electricity produced by steam or diesel generation, and others from the point of view that the Board has been unmindful of the amenities of the Highlands. The Board has a first-class case on both these point.
I do not think that the economic case against the Board has been proved at all but the very opposite. It is a complete travesty of the situation to charge the Board with being inconsiderate in its approach to questions of amenities, whether of the national scenic beauty of the area or for fishing, walking and so on. The case for the Board is unchallengeable in the main on both these issues.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the fact that there are now appearing in the local Press in the Highlands and other parts of Scotland letters inspired by a nationally organised campaign but which purport to come from local inhabitants. I should like to see the Board, through its public relations department or however it organises these things, making a far more definite and courageous stand on these letters to the Press and other propaganda against it on this subject.
Hardly a month passes without correspondence in the papers about hydroelectricity. The people who defend the Hydro-Electric Board are not the Board itself but simply interested individuals. Why should not the Board do this for itself? It issued a Press statement on the Scottish Power Investigation Committee. As far as I know, it has not carried on from that statement but in many cases has allowed its detractors to

have things their own way. I know that it is difficult for nationalised industries, because they are subject not only to detailed charges against their administration but to political attacks. I do not suggest that the Board should enter the political arena but where there are letters to the Press giving false figures of comparison between hydro-electricity and steam generation there is no reason why the Board should not answer the charges.
Why does it not do so? This is one of the few things on which the Board can be criticised. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will draw the Board's attention to this point and to the fact that a great many people in Scotland who are enthusiastic about the Board and extremely appreciative of the tremendous amount of good work that the Board has done since its inception would like to see it take a more vigorous and courageous stand. The organisers of the campaign against the Board are simply disgruntled individuals or people with some vested interest who want for some reason or other to have their own way.

1.5 p.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: It is very seldom that I find myself twice on the same day in almost complete agreement with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson). I agree with his tribute to the magnificent social work done by the Hydro-Electric Board in Scotland and his deprecation of the campaign organised from the South against the Board.
I should like to make a plea on behalf of the people in the north of Scotland who still do not have the advantage of electricity. The Board has already connected over 100,000 uneconomic consumers. It has been able to do that by good economic planning but there are over 10,000 people who have not yet had electricity installed and a great many of them are in my constituency. Their only hope of getting electricity and the pleasure of switching on the light, watching television, working an electric iron or getting an electric fan installed is the Board, because hydro-electricity is one of the few valuable exports that we have in the North of Scotland.
There has been a great deal of talk about capital expenditure but when it


is possible to sell electricity for over 1½d. a unit and buy it back for about ·6d. this is very good business. If that profit were not made by the Board there would be no hope for people in my constituency who have been waiting for years for electricity.

Mr. Millan: Is the hon. Member talking about the cost of electricity purchased by the South from the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board? If he is, it should be remembered that before the electricity is connected to the consumer distribution costs and other costs have to be added.

Mr. Hendry: I quite agree, but there is still a profit and if it were not for that profit it would be impossible for the power to be connected to the uneconomic consumers.
The 1959 Report of the South of Scotland Electricity Board deals with this point and pays tribute to the tremendous value to the Board of hydro-electricity which it can switch on at peak times. It is not only good business for the north of Scotland but for the south of Scotland as well and the rest of the United Kingdom. It is one of our few valuable exports, and I feel very strongly against any people in Scotland or elsewhere who propose, without any real knowledge of the facts, to interfere with what the Hydro-Electric Board is doing.
There is a tremendous need in the north of Scotland and we are not asking for subsidies. All we ask is that we should be allowed to continue to put our own affairs in order and conduct them in the best possible way to make sure that in 1960 and 1961 people who have not yet been connected with an electricity supply will have the ordinary amenities Which are an every-day occurrence in the South.

1.9 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: It is surprising that there Should be any need for this debate, but, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) has explained, a curious campaign has been launched against the Hydro-Electric Board, particularly in connection with the Glen Nevis scheme. I agree with nearly all that the hon. Member has said but I am sorry that he attributed sinister motives

to "Aims of Industry" which I think is merely misguided in this matter.

Mr. Millan: Why should the "Aims of Industry" suddenly become misguided about the Highlands when it has never taken any interest in them before?

Mr. MacArthur: One might as well ask why the National Trust should be equally misguided in this matter.
I particularly regret the attack which the hon. Member for Dundee, East made on Colonel Whitbread. To get the whole matter in perspective, it would be useful to remind ourselves of the vast stretch of land covered by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. It is about one-quarter of the total land area of Great Britain. The population within that area is only 2½ per cent. of the total population of Great Britain. The average number of potential consumers per square mile is 19 compared with 195, or over ten times as many, for the rest of Scotland and 255 for England and Wales.
This gives some idea of the magnitude of the problem which the Board faces. Despite the enormous distribution problem which these figures illustrate, the Board now supplies nearly 90 per cent. of all the potential consumers within its area. Among these there are over 100,000 rural consumers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) mentioned, and these are mostly in the remoter parts of the Highlands and the Islands.
The cost of providing this rural supply is, on average, £350 for each consumer, and in normal commercial terms this would be a hopelessly uneconomic figure, for the Board has no chance ever of recouping this capital cost from these consumers. But the Board is bound by the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943, to provide electricity in these remote areas, and the fact that it has connected so many rural consumers at a relatively low total loss demonstrates the extent of its contribution to the improvement of social conditions in the Highlands and the success of its commercial policy.
The only way in which it is possible for this development to take place is by the sale of electricity to the South of Scotland Electricity Board. I am very much in agreement with what the hon.


Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) had to say, but it is not so much the consumers in Dundee, Aberdeen, Perth and so on who finance the heavy cost of connections in the rural areas as the sale of electricity to the South of Scotland, which amounts to about a quarter of the total units sold each year by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board.
Most people regard the electric light switch as a normal part of domestic equipment. Nevertheless, they can perhaps imagine what their life would be without the provision of electricity. Yet until recently this was exactly the mode of life which most people in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland had to endure. The transformation of private domestic life and community life which the production of electricity brings has to be seen and experienced to be realised. In my own constituency, the remote area of Glenshee has very recently been connected to the electricity supply, and the whole life of the area has changed. There are also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West has mentioned, remote areas such as Path of Condie in my constituency, where we hope electricity will be supplied before long. These areas represent the 10 per cent. of consumers who still have to be connected.
At present there are two main arguments in the campaign against the Board. The first is the financial argument. Basically it is that the cost per kilowatt installed in a hydro-electric scheme is about three times as great as that in a thermal scheme. But this is not the complete argument, because a thermal station has a life of only twenty-five years whereas a hydro-electric station dam and power station, though written off over a period of eighty years, actually has a life which is much longer than that—a life of continuing high efficiency at low cost. The running costs of a hydro-electric station are very low, and as the initial cost of the installation is written down, so the provision of electricity becomes cheaper.
The second argument is one based on amenity. It is natural that those who love the Highlands should be disturbed by the prospect of a dam being built in their favourite glen. But I think that these fears are often very much exaggerated. The Board takes great care to do as little

damage as possible. Certainly in the course of building there are great scars on the countryside, but it is remarkable how quickly these are covered over by nature. I remember making an expedition on foot—in a curious enterprise with which the hon. Member for Dundee, East will have much sympathy—in order to view the Glen Affric scheme and the dam at Loch Beneveian. I went on foot from the West Coast of Scotland to Glen Affric, through beautiful Highland country and saw this great dam rising out of the glen. I was astonished not by the harm which it had done to the beauty of the glen but by the way in which it had somehow improved the aspect before my eyes. A dam cannot be hidden or camouflaged. However, the dam rising there in the midst of the Highlands is a symbol of strength. It signals somehow the new life and the new hope which should be welcomed by all those who have the interests of the Highlands and those who live there at heart.

1.16 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): I would begin by thanking the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) for their kind remarks at the beginning of the debate. We are also indebted to the hon. Member for Dundee, East for transferring our minds this morning from K.O.s to kW.s. The fact that we were earlier concerned with K.O.s has curtailed the time for this debate and I shall try to be very brief. I am sorry that some hon. Members who wished to speak have not been able to do so.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Dundee, East, in spite of some of his remarks, will expect me to make any new pronouncements on policy in this brief Adjournment debate. However, having said that, I must quickly add that this is not because of any lack of enthusiasm for the subject or appreciation of the fact that opportunity has been taken this morning to raise this subject. We are very glad that it has been raised because, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, there is in the natural course of events bound to be a good deal of criticism of and argument about the activities of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. This is in no


way, and never has been, criticism of the management and the personnel; but there is bound, in the nature of things, to be argument about locations and the scope of its operations, and if periodically the opportunity is not taken to state or re-state its record of achievement there is a danger that an unbalanced or unfair impression may gain ground in the country. Equally, we do not want to be unbalanced or unfair about a number of deeply-held objections to certain of the Board's operations on their merits in certain places and at certain times.
To deal first for the moment with the legitimate arguments and constructive criticism at times brought forward about some of the Board's operations, it seems to me that the arguments fall broadly under two headings. The first arises naturally from the nature of the terrain in which the Board works. We have two outstanding natural assets in the Highlands, water power and scenery, and, following the normal human desire to have one's cake and eat it, we want to develop the resources and we also want to conserve them. We want to exploit our water power without damaging our scenery. It is by no means easy to strike the right balance between these things, although there is fairly general agreement, I think, that up to the present the Board has made a pretty good job of it.
It seems to me that the second field of argument is also grounded on equally normal and widely applicable sets of reactions. It really is the usual effort to strike a balanced judgment between the benefits of quick returns on the one hand and the benefits of long-term assets on the other hand. Other forms of electric generation, as has been pointed out, take less capital and are more profitable in the short run. Hydro-electricity takes more capital to get going, but thereafter running costs become almost negligible.
As the House knows, a debate about the relative merits of costing and the economics of this can become extremely involved. One is easily led into a labyrinth of technicalities and statistics where the Minotaur of Kidderminster lies in wait for the unwary, and I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. N. Maclean), the hon. Member far Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur)

and other hon. Members who have touched on some of these technical points this morning, will absolve me, in the short time at my disposal, from pursuing these dangerous paths.
I have noted what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said about the Board countering some of these arguments. He will appreciate that the Board's publicity is handicapped at the moment because of its statutory position in seeking approval for the Glen Nevis scheme. Argument is bound to arise on these matters and it is not always easy to strike the right balance.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East mentioned the Scottish Landowners Federation in a slightly controversial context. I have the Federation's memorandum. In paying tribute to the Board, it says:
The achievements of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board since it was set up, in spite of circumstances never envisaged in the Cooper Report or in the Act, have been tremendous.
The Federation praises the Board, and the memorandum continues with a reasoned and objective case which remains to be assessed.
Hon. Members have pointed out, and I am simply re-emphasising the point, that the Board has hitherto been developing the resources of the Highlands. It has been making a profit and using that money to make electricity available in the remoter parts of the Highlands. As the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West pointed out, this is obviously a good thing.
I will not take up the time of the House by going over and rehearsing the Board's record of achievement to date. The facts are well known. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire and other hon. Members have mentioned various outstanding points in that record. The real problem that we face is that the demand from the Board's present consumers is steadily increasing at the rate of about 7 per cent. per annum. If the Board does not continue to expand its capacity, it will not be able to keep up profitable sales to the South and will not be able to keep up the development work which has brought considerable


benefits to the North. The Board therefore proposes new schemes and these schemes inevitably give rise to the sort of objections and arguments to which I have referred.
The latest scheme is the Glen Nevis one to which the hon. Member for Inverness referred. We know that its publication has given rise to what we must admit is considerable controversy. Is it the right thing to do? Is it the right place to do it? There have been 28 formal objections from national organisations and private individuals, most of whom are concerned about the effects of the scheme on the amenities of the glen. These representations are being considered, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment now on the questions which these objections raise.
I will simply add that the objections are, of course, subject to the procedures laid down in the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943, as amended, and that after they have been considered by my right hon. Friend a public inquiry can be held. Moreover, as hon. Members know, before any scheme can become operative it has to be laid before Parliament and it may be annulled by Resolution in either House.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The hon. Gentleman is apparently trying to hold the balance between all these things. My hon. Friend was inquiring about the Government's attitude. Surely the hon. Gentleman can say whether the Government are firmly behind the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in its attempts to bring more electrification to Scotland?

Mr. Brooman-White: All I can say is that various objections have been made to the new scheme, and that if these objections are maintained there is a statutory obligation to hold an inquiry to assess the merits and the demerits of the case. I think that it would be wrong at the moment to prejudge the conclusions of that inquiry in any way.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Apart from objections to this scheme, can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is the Government's intention to go ahead in the long term with further hydro-electric development in Scotland?

Mr. Brooman-White: The benefits of hydro-electricity in Scotland speak for

themselves, as does the necessity for developing the natural resources of the Highlands to the full, but these things have to be assessed in the general context of both the economics and the amenities involved. I am sorry that at present I cannot say more than that.
We are glad to have had this debate because hon. Members have set out clearly the background against which these current and very relevant considerations must be studied and weighed.

1.26 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: In the two minutes available may I reinforce what hon. Members on both sides have said. They have paid glowing tribute to the performance of the Board, and they are extremely concerned because there is a possibility that if the present propaganda being waged against the Board spreads and gains credence the electrification schemes which hon. Members have said are so essential to their constituents will be stopped. I should therefore have thought that it was vital for the Government to express their view on the whole subject.
We know that standards of life in any country can be measured by the amount of horsepower available per head. The Board has a phenomenally good record. Tribute has been paid to the Board on the amenity side for not spoiling the beauties of the glens and for giving great consideration to that aspect of the development. There has not been a discordant note struck during the debate. In other words, there is complete unanimity in supporting the Board in what it has done. One therefore feels that one is entitled to expect the Government—I do not press the hon. Gentleman to do so at the moment—to take cognisance of this debate and to realise that, despite the propaganda which has been indulged in and which my hon. Friends outlined, there is a feeling that there should be a proper understanding by the public of the great job of work which the Board has done and of the future possibilities if the Board is permitted to carry on its work.
I think that that is the general feeling of the House, and I hope that the Government will not look on themselves as holding the balance. They have a great


stake in seeing that the people of the Highlands in particular have the power which they need. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), who has unfortunately not been allowed to speak today, has said on many occasions that his constituents want more industries in the area. The provision of more industries depends on the supply of more electricity. We therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this closely with his right hon. Friend and to tell us that there will be no going back by the Government in their support of the Board, a Board which has done everything which the House has asked it to do, and done it as regards amenities and everything else. We feel that the Government should be more specific. They should repudiate the propaganda levelled at the Board and give the Board their full support.

UNITED NATIONS AND CONGO

1.29 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: There is not sufficient time to go into all the sordid details of the background of the Congo situation. All the facts show that the Belgians were guilty of criminal negligence in the way in which they handled the Congo situation before independence. There was inadequate preparation for independence. There was discrimination against the setting up of national organisations, and a complete lack of any programme of training for the Congolese to take over positions of authority. When independence came, there were only seventeen graduates in the whole of the Congo and no senior executives. The Belgians held on to all the positions of authority until the last possible moment, and as soon as there was any feeling of uncertainty after independence came the Belgians rushed out of the Congo in great panic. The Belgians, indeed, have a terrible record in their handling of the Congo situation—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): rose—

Mr. Stonehouse: I appreciate the point that you are about to make, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was about to say that this is the background to the situation and I do not want to dwell on it any longer because the situation now is that the United Nations, having been asked into the Congo, are now being undermined in their authority by the very Belgians who were guilty of inadequate preparation for Congolese independence.
I was in Leopoldville at the end of September, a few days after Colonel Mobutu's coup d'etat. It was quite obvious at that time that Colonel Mobutu was acting with Belgian advice and, indeed, Belgian support. It has been suggested that President Kasavubu is the legitimate Head of State. I do not want to enter into that controversy, but I want to make the point—and I think the House will agree with me on this—that President Kasavubu's authority depends on an alliance with Colonel Mobutu; and when Colonel Mobutu, who ihas the army's support, decides to


withdraw his support from President Kasavubu, the Kasavubu régime in fact will have no authority whatsoever.
While I was in Leopoldville the Mobutu troops stopped meetings of the Congolese Parliament. On four occasions while I was there Congolese Deputies attempted to meet and on each occasion they were stopped by the Army forces. What is so worrying about the Congo position now is that Colonel Mobutu, acting without constitutional authority, using a rabble of an army with Belgian support, is in fact preventing the legitimate constitutional authority from operating, namely—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member can only speak on matters for which there is Ministerial responsibility. So far the hon. Member does not seem to have mentioned any matter with Ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Stonehouse: I have taken only a few minutes to explain the background as I see it. Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The position now is that the Belgians are using their influence and intrigue in the Congo in an attempt by the back door to reassert their authority, and I believe that Britain now has the responsibility to take a new initiative to ensure that the Congo situation can be solved without the great Powers becoming involved in a sruggle within that territory. That, as I see it, is the position.
We have just had news this morning of the failure in the United Nations General Assembly to reach a majority solution. Great Britain has supported an American resolution which, in my opinion, did not go far enough. Indeed, we understand—and I would be grateful if the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would clarify this point, because it is not clear from the Press reports—that Britain voted against the Indian and Yugoslav resolution which was supported by a number of newly-independent States. Is that the case? I should like the Under-Secretary to reply to that.
The Yugoslav-Indian Resolution made a number of suggestions which seem to me wholly acceptable: first, that there should be the release of political prisoners; secondly, that the Congolese Parliament should be allowed to meet

under United Nations protection; and further that the United Nations forces should prevent the Congolese Army units from interfering in the country's internal political affairs. It also demanded the recall of the Belgian military and quasi-military personnel. All those points seem to me to be the sort of points which Her Majesty's Government should be supporting, and I cannot understand—I hope the Under-Secretary will tell us—why we have voted against this proposal.
The Minister will be aware that the Belgians have been infiltrating into positions of authority in the last few months. The Ministry of Public Health is now manned with Belgian personnel, and it has been stated publicly that there is no need for a United Nations team in the Congo. Belgians have been advising Congolese officials and, in fact, withholding United Nations documents and reports from the Congolese officials responsible for these Ministries. The Information Ministry has four Belgian advisers who are gradually taking the Information Ministry back to its old techniques. There is a Belgian colonel who is acting as adviser to the Ministry of National Defence in Leopoldville, and Colonel Mobutu himself has a Belgian former warrant officer who is serving as his aide-de-camp. In Katanga there are 114 Belgian officers and 117 Belgian N.C.O.s in key positions and all the key civilian and security posts are held by Belgians. In South Kasai there are Belgian officers and Belgian police organising the régime established there.
I should have thought that the report which Ambassador Dayal provided was absolutely clear on this question of Belgian intervention. I quote from paragraphs 54 and 55 of his report. He says that the influence of Belgian nationals has
… all too often … coincided with anti-United Nations policies or feelings at the various points of impact. Belgian activities in recent weeks have increased the intransigence of the A.N.C. command as well as of the Katangese authorities, inhibited peaceful political activity and therefore the possibility of an eventual return to constitutional government and the re-establishment of the unity and integrity of the country. These activities have also had their repercussions, direct or indirect, on the technical assistance programme as has been indicated in this and other chapters.


Those words are surely strong enough to have influenced the British representative at U.N.O. to vote for the Indian-Yugoslav proposal.
I want to ask the Under-Secretary this question. What protest have Her Majesty's Government made to the Belgian authorities about their continual intrigue in the Congo? Has Her Majesty's Government been inhibited by the N.A.T.O. connection and Belgium's threat to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation? Is this the reason why they are hesitant in pressing a point of view? Are they too frightened, too vacillating, too inhibited by military alliances to say what they really think; or are we to understand that they actually approve of Colonel Mobutu's suppression of the elected Parliament, his rule of terror and his undermining of the work of the United Nations in the Congo? We want a clear explanation of these points.
The United Nations have reached a deadlock. Do Her Majesty's Government want this deadlock to continue? If not, will they now take a new initiative to resolve it? I believe if they do, and if they get the support of India, Ghana and other Commonwealth countries, as well as of the newly-independent States, they can strike a new blow for the United Nations. If they refuse to act, they will be guilty of helping to undermine U.N.O. and its work.
I therefore propose to the Joint Under-Secretary that he should ask his right hon. Friend to consider Motion No. 34 which has been put on the Order Paper by his hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman):—
[That this House, recalling the United Nations General Assembly's resolution of 19th September requesting the Secretary-General to continue to take vigorous action and to assist the central government of the Congo in the restoration and maintenance of law and order, throughout the territory, and noting the impossibility of fulfilling that resolution in the continued absence of a central government of the Congo which the Secretary-General might thus hope to assist, requests Her Majesty's Government to propose that the General Assembly of the United Nations should appoint a commission to act as the administering authority for the territory and to assist that

commission with the powers necessary to enforce law and order until such time as the General Assembly becomes satisfied that an authoritative Central Government of the Congo has been brought into existence.]
It is supported by hon. Members from both sides of the House and it asks that United Nations should be given greater authority in the Congo until an authoritative central Government has been established.
I should like to follow that with a proposal that Parliament should be recalled with United Nations protection and that, if necessary, within six or nine months' time a new general election should be held. In the meantime the Congolese political leaders should be called together, preferably in New York, to discuss the problem of the Congo and to try to resolve their differences. Unless this initiative is taken there will be a further relapse into chaos and disorder in the Congo. We shall have a situation in which the Belgians will build up their military support of the Leopoldville régime and the Russians will begin to be interested in supporting the Gizenga régime in Stanleyville. This would result in the danger of civil war in the Congo between these rival forces and of the Congo being thrown right into the cockpit of the cold war. There would be the danger of another Korean situation with military forces being brought in on both sides. The country would be torn in bloody conflict and the world itself would be endangered by the big Powers being involved in the conflict in the Congo.

1.41 p.m.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), not because there is not a certain amount with which I agree in what he said but because time is limited and possibly we may develop a fresh approach. My approach starts with the conception that not all questions have a solution. There are certain problems which are insoluble and there are a lot of problems in which the answer is a choice between two thoroughly bad alternatives. We recently had an example in the problem of Covent Garden, where it was so easy to see the disadvantages of what might be thought the least bad proposition.


Covent Garden was not a matter of very great importance, but I submit that the Congo is a matter of very great importance indeed, with the lives of millions and the future of ordered government in Africa at stake.
I think that ordered government is the keynote, because in my view order is heaven's first law and at the present moment we have the chaos of hell in the Congo. If the choice is to be between two bad alternatives, and I think it may be—because the other choice is that there is no solution to this problem which cannot be solved even with bloodshed over a long time—and if the choice is thus to be between two alternatives both of which are bad, it will need to be a choice between ordered autocracy or chaotic democracy.
If we contemplate Nkrumah in Ghana, we might say that there we have what is clearly becoming, if it has not become so already, an ordered autocracy rather than an ordered democracy. Everybody in the Congo—with the exception possibly of those people sparring for personal power for their own ends would agree that such a period of ordered autocracy would be far the more acceptable of the alternatives; and moreover, that it might indeed be a good alternative if only the order and peace were introduced and the autocratic element were limited in time and by the intention that full democracy was to be evolved during that time.
It is in those terms that a number of hon. Members in this House have put forward that early day Motion. That Motion sets out as the ideal, the establishment of an authority to be legally responsible for order; in other words, an authority, a government. I think also it implies—it certainly does in my mind—that that Commission, which shall be the Government, shall be responsible to the Congolese and not United Nations. In point of fact, it is a denial of democracy far greater than is any ordinary autocracy if the wishes of the Congolese can be voiced and reach the responsible authority only indirectly through Her Majesty's Government representatives at the United Nations and through the representatives of the other 99 Governments or however many they are. The Commission which is to be the Congolese Government should, like any

sovereign Power, be responsible for Government and order and the sole such authority within its territory and it should be responsible to its own population and not to an international organisation of the Governments of other nations.
Secondly, the Motion implies, and I think it should, that in its appointment of the members of any Commission to govern, the United Nations General Assembly should impose limitations in time and intention, and by all means limitation in terms of colour. I do not think any hon. Member would dissent from the view that such a Commission should have on it nobody of a white European race at all. The important point is that there are throughout the world, people of other colours capable of objective, disinterested and competent government who could do so acceptably if only they were given the authority and the legal position so to govern. I think we ought also to call on Her Majesty's Government to recognise such a Commission de jure as well as de facto as the Government of the Congo, and we should urge Her Majesty's Government to invite all other national Governments to accord similar recognition to that ad hoc Government when it is set up.
In the Motion we suggest that it should be the United Nations General Assembly which should appoint such a Commission. In all forms of Government it is essential that there should be somebody who "fingers" and thus determines who shall set himself up as the personification of legal government. In some cases it is a 'president and in some cases a monarch who so designates the man. Taking our own analogy, it is up to the Prime Minister designate who is given the opportunity to form a Government to govern and win acceptability and support. Appointment comes first and acceptability remains to be won and sustained. I think we who have sired democracy tend to overlook the importance of the machinery for rejecting the old government and we over-emphasise the electoral machinery for ensuring the acceptability of the new Government. The real essence of democracy is the acceptance of existing government if it is doing a good job, and of the ability to sack it either after due lapse of time or by the clear fact that it will be overthrown if it does not remove itself from


office and allow a fresh "fingering" to take place. We thus suggest that in the absence of any Government in the Congo the General Assembly should act as President or Monarch and finger a new one.
I should say that with the chaos now ruling, the United Nations Assembly is the ideal and only body for fingering and giving authority to somebody who has to elevate himself, that is to say to a commission to set itself up as the body with authority.
I have read, in connection with organisation and methods work, all the standard works on organisation. I think it is absolutely clear, and that everybody is agreed on this one thing, that in government whether of a nation, a business or a home we get only confusion and disorganisation if the lines of responsibility are not crystal clear, if they are divided over a great number of people and not reposited in one person.
There has been in the Congo not only chaos but a fantastic world-wide confusion as to where responsibility lies. Last August the American Ambassador in Leopoldville, Mr. Timberlake, was reported as "sharply protesting that U.S. aircraft would not land any more at the Congo airports until … the United Nations could guarantee adequate military protection for the aircraft and their crews". Who is responsible for the safety of aircraft landing? Is it really the United Nations and not the Government of the country concerned? Can we imagine that if some American planes had difficulty in landing at London Airport the American Ambassador would hold the United Nations responsible? Is it not absolutely clear that the British Government are responsible for everything that happens in the sphere of things under its control? We need above all a clear definition of a single, solitary authority and power who is to be regarded as responsible for the Congo and all Governmental activities in that territory.
Let us recognise that the United Nations was formed, and still remains, as a club of sovereign nations dedicated to the purpose of guarding their sovereignty and not allowing one tittle of it to slip away. In the Korean situation and the Egyptian situation the forces of the U.N. were there not by any right of govern

ment but by invitation of the local Government, which still remained the effective national Government and without any diminution of their authority by the admission of the troops of a number of nations purporting to be also the troops of the United Nations. In this Congo case, however, there is a new situation which we seem to fail to realise is a usurpation by the United Nations of the authority of the local national Government. This is a tremendous danger because this new development could involve the very survival of the United Nations. I was very pleased to see that our Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the United Nations drew attention only this week to the fact that no small nation in future would ever dare to call in the United Nations if when the United Nations came in it were coming in on this precedent of usurping the right to govern within that nation's territory.
For every reason, then, I urge Her Majesty's Government to pay attention to that early day Motion and solve this problem of ensuring that there be set up a commission who may be an effective Government of the Congo. If order is heaven's first law, the first step in such a first law is to organise clear responsibility, clear authority, and to see that it is matched with power to carry out the responsibility laid upon it.

1.53 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I wish to support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) and also by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) that attention should be paid by the Government to the early day Motion, No. 34. I do not think any of us has any doubt that the situation in the Congo has shown a remarkably serious position from the point of view of the future of the United Nations and from other points of view as well.
The whole authority, the whole prestige and the idea of the United Nations as a peace-keeping authority has come very much under suspicion in large parts of the world as a result of what has been happening in the Congo. Mr. Hammarskjöld warned us that unless the United Nations has more authority it will be very serious indeed and the whole United Nations enterprise in the Congo may well collapse. In this


morning's newspapers we have the news that the United Nations has failed to do just that which Mr. Hammarskjlöld has been asking for and failed because of its inherent disunity as to what course should be followed. The whole situation is extremely serious from the point of view of the United Nations.
Having regard to the Charter and the possibilities of the United Nations under that Charter, it does not seem that the situation which has arisen is one which might not have been expected. The United Nations as an organisation and institution has many admirable qualities. I should be the very last person to attempt to undermine its authority or to suggest that it is not an excellent institution, in fact the very best that could be produced, the very best that could have been produced when it was produced and indeed may still be the very best that could be produced. Yet we have the situation in which the organisation itself is disunited about what its servants should do. Therefore, its servants have to do the best they can in quite impossible circumstances without proper authority.
In this situation, contingents of troops contributed by members of the United Nations are gradually evaporating and there is very great danger that that tendency may be increased. We have the appalling difficulty of a force having to try to operate when it has not had previous training, or indeed previous existence in which to train. I saw in a newspaper circulating in my constituency a report that the various forces in the Congo are acting on different frequencies of communication. As the Motion urges, we have to try by every possible means to strengthen the United Nations as it exists. I am certainly not going to be one on this occasion who criticises the Government for having notably fallen down in striving towards their objective. I think they have done something quite considerable towards trying to give the United Nations more authority rather than less. That is precisely What I hope they will go on doing with increased vigour.
Until we have a world security authority we shall never be able to cope with this situation, or indeed with many other situations Which are only too likely to arise as a threat to world peace. The United Nations has most admirable

qualities, not least among which is that it provides a forum for the formation and expression of world opinion. Having regard to the limitations of the Charter, that it can deal with real threats to peace and become a peace-keeping authority I beg leave to doubt very much indeed. I do not think it was ever intended for that because, when it was set up, those who set it up did not believe that was a practical proposition. tion.
Now the situation is utterly different. I ask the Government to give very serious consideration to furthering views which individual members of the Government, from the Prime Minister through a whole chain of distinguished Ministers, have frequently expressed. I do not know if the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is one, but I hope he may be one after this debate. I hope the Government will give effect to the opinions expressed by those Ministers that at the earliest possible opportunity a world authority should be set up. Pure disarmament might prove very difficult to achieve if looked at by itself, but it may be achieved by means of such a world authority.
The suggestion I make is that an authority should be set up through the United Nations and by it, leaving all the present duties and powers—if it has any—and functions of the United Nations intact to be carried on as before. It should set up a security authority consisting of twelve or twenty—I do not know how many—individuals elected by the veto. That is to say, they would be subject to the veto in the Security Council so that an individual elected to that security authority would have the confidence of the world because otherwise he would have been vetoed. I am asking the Government to carry out the opinions of their own Ministers, expressed by the Prime Minister downwards, and to urge the United Nations to pass a statute—if such be the right word—or an agreement, whereby it would be shown in what circumstances a world security authority which it would proceed to set up should act. In other words, a law should be passed according to which the authority should act.
The authority should then be set up. It would then be outside the bounds of


political interference by the Security Council or the Assembly and it would act as our own police at home would act. It would "do its stuff", and anyone who did not like the "stuff" which it was doing would take the matter to court. This brings me to the third branch of the suggestion, namely, that the Government should urge that a world court be set up in order to administer or apply this statute which I urge that the United Nations should pass. The individuals on the court would be elected subject to the veto, and each would therefore have the confidence of the world.
If these three things were done—the statute passed, the security authority set up and the court set up—there would be a least a prospect of security. It might not be complete security but it would be a better prospect of security than ever there has been before. Only when we have such a prospect will sovereign nations, having regard to their duties to their own people, be prepared to consider disarmament. If these suggestions were followed, we should achieve a significant break-through in disarmament in a very short time.
This suggestion is not concerned only with the Congo but is concerned with the possibility of disturbances of peace anywhere in the world. It concerns other circumstances than those of the Congo. But if such a system had been in existence when the Congo problem flared up, and if the world security authority had intervened in accordance with the statute which I have suggested that the United Nations should pass, to keep the peace of the world, how much better off all concerned would have been today. In the meantime, we have not this authority, and the Motion which we are considering is, I submit, the immediate stop which the Government might take to resolve an extremely serious and dangerous situation in the Congo.

2.3 p.m.

Mr. Humphry Berkeley: I agree with a great deal of the speech of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), although not with all of it, and I wish to reinforce his plea that the Government should take a new initiative in the United Nations over the

Congo. I believe that our Government are particularly qualified to do this. Indeed, we are probably the only country in the world which at the present time can do this, both because of our links with the Commonwealth countries and also because of our record in Africa.
In considering what this initiative should be, we should bear in mind two basic facts which affect the interests of Africa and of ourselves. In the first place, I am sure that we should remember that fragmentation is the great danger in the newly independent African countries. We saw signs of this in Ghana after Ghana had achieved independence. There are dangers, fortunately not very great, I think, of fragmentation in Nigeria. We saw the immediate and obvious example in the Congo, with the secession of the breakaway province of Katanga. I am certain that it must be the Government's policy in the United Nations to do all they can to retain the unity of the Congo.
Secondly, we ought to be guided in our policy by a recognition of the fact that it is in the interests not only of the peoples of Africa but also basically of the peoples of the West that Africa should remain an uncommitted Continent and that, in particular, we should do all that we possibly can to see that any aid given in the Congo is given through United Nations auspices.
At times I have been severely critical of the rôle played by Dr. Nkrumah of Ghana in the Congo crisis. I think that he has betrayed a certain degree of naïveté at times, and I also believe that it is not satisfactory, on the one hand, to commit one's troops to United Nations command and then, on the other, continually to threaten to withdraw them if the United Nations is not prepared to do at that precise moment exactly what one wants them to do. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that the prime aim in Dr. Nkrumah's mind is that the Congo should be isolated from world power politics, and at the back of everything which he has suggested, however impracticable and foolish it may seem to be, there is a very genuine desire to avoid any possibility of Russian intervention in the Congo.
This is something which, I believe, we are able to understand because of our


record in Africa but which the Americans have found very difficult to understand. For example, the observation by Mr. Herter that Ghana had clearly gone over to the Communist camp was not only profoundly inaccurate and betraying complete ignorance of the current politics of Africa, but it was also extremely damaging in trying to secure a solution to a highly explosive problem. When we add to that the efforts which the American Government made in the United Nations to secure recognition of President Kasavubu's mission, it is not altogether surprising that the African States, or many of them, feel that the Congo is being used by certain Western Powers as a pawn in a game which will secure them some political domination and political control.
The basic fact which we must face in the Congo is that if the West and the neutralist Powers can come together, a solution can be reached. This is why, in the early stages, a degree of success was possible in United Nations intervention. Equally, we must recognise that if the United Nations fails the only person who can gain from that failure is Mr. Khrushchev. I do not want to go into the question of Mr. Lumumba's position, except to say that it is at least arguable that he is the legitimate Prime Minister of the Congo. I think that the arguments are extremely complicated and extremely dubious, but one thing is clear beyond any doubt, and that is that the régime of Colonel Mobutu has no legal validity whatever. Even if we regard Mr. Lumumba, as I think it would be fair to regard him, only as one of a number of tribal leaders, we must recognise that, however unsatisfactory he may appear to be to us—and I, for one, find him profoundly unsatisfactory—it will almost certainly be impossible to secure any agreement in the Congo without his participation in any discussions which take place.
It would be quite wrong for us to fall for the blackmailing activities of Dr. Nkrumah when he suggests that the United Nations should restore Mr. Lumumba to the Premiership, but equally it must be recognised that if we are to take the initiative and to try to bring the Congolese leaders together, Mr. Lumumba must be released from gaol. Even the Nigerians, our closest and most conservative African friends,

have been outraged by his treatment. He must be released, and he must be included in any discussions which take place.
I believe that our Government are specially qualified to bring a new initiative to bear on this appalling chaos in the Congo. I would further suggest that our Prime Minister might personally bring his unique reputation, prestige and experience to bear to try to solve this problem. The Prime Minister is known to be on excellent terms with Dr. Nkrumah, with Mr. Nehru and with Sir Abubakar Balewa. These three personalities could, I believe, play a key rôle in any initiative that might take place.
In the first place, we have to try to convene a round-table conference, preferably outside the Congo and ideally in New York, of the various contending factions inside the Congo. Ultimately, after that has been done, we have to see to it that proper provisions are made under United Nations protection for the Congolese Parliament to meet. I am absolutely clear in my own mind, from my own experience and travels in Africa, that Africans throughout the continent attach a great importance to legitimacy so far as Governments are concerned. If it is recognised that an Army officer, however distinguished, can seize power without any constitutional backing at all, and can do this with the tacit support of the United Nations, I believe that the faith which the African people may have in the United Nations as an organisation will be destroyed.
I leave the House with three basic thoughts. First of all, our task is to get the West and the uncommitted nations together. If we can do this we can isolate the Soviet bloc. Secondly, we must recognise that if the United Nations fails, the attempt to keep Africa out of world power politics will have collapsed. Thirdly, if the United Nations is to succeed it must have a constitutional and effective Government to work with. That has been half the reason, I believe, for the chaos in the last few months. If our Government, and, preferably, our Prime Minister, can bring their efforts to bear to solve this problem, not only shall we have completed a great task for the Congolese people but we shall also have created a new chapter in the history of the United Nations and the


part it can play in dealing with the problems of these newly developing and highly volatile countries.

2.13 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I find myself in very warm agreement with almost everything that has fallen from the lips of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley). In his remarkable speech he urged that our Government were better placed than any other to take a new initiative. I cordially agree. I believe over the last few months we have, perhaps, compromised our ability to carry Africans and others with us, but we can recover. The hon. Gentleman said that the unity of the Congo must be an overriding aim. I agree. He said that Africa must not be brought into the power of conflict, or into the cold war. Nothing can be more important for Britain, for our interests abroad, and for the world. I agree with the hon. Member that it was a disastrous mistake—a cold war mistake—to seat the Kasavubu delegation in the General Assembly, as the United States insisted should be done.
I will make a few observations on the unity of the Congo based on personal conversations with people who have come back from the Congo since the trouble began. I was in Geneva in July and someone who had just returned said that he had heard a leading figure in the Union Miniére say that, of course, they had supported Tsombe's movement for the independence of Katanga. I thought that was very sinister, and I think it is a matter of grave regret that the Belgians, for whom I have a high regard, have pursued a policy of sending back people to the Congo to work against the United Nations.
I believe that our Government have not done enough to assist the Secretary-General in his demand that the resolution of the Security Council should be observed, that all aid and technical experts should be channelled through the United Nations, and that the Belgians should cease what they have been doing. I hope very much indeed that our Government will now tell our delegate at the United Nations, and tell our Ambassador in the Congo and the Belgian Government in Brussels, that we expect it to comply with the Security

Council resolution; I hope that we shall say that in no uncertain terms. It is not good enough to go on drifting because the Belgians are our N.A.T.O. allies.
I am afraid that we have failed in not giving adequate support to the United Nations in other ways. I believe that, again on the basis of personal conversations with people who have been there, but I quote from Mr. Colin Legum who wrote in the Observer on 11th December:
Right from its inception Congolese politicians have attacked the U.N.O. in the Congo when they thought they could not get united support for themselves.
Lumumba did it when he was Prime Minister and Mobutu is doing it now.
Their attitude is at least more understandable than that of several Western Diplomats who spend their time criticising the United Nations and sneering at the people who are running it.
Mr. Legum says of Mr. Dayal:
The idea that he is following 'an Indian line', put about especially by American observers, is about as absurd as the Russian view of Mr. Dayal's predecessor, Mr. Ralph Bunche, as an 'American imperialist'.
I believe that we must again take a strong line on that, and I hope that the Government will give urgent instructions to their representatives in the Congo to cease whatever they may have been doing in that way and to urge upon all others that they should give the fullest support to Mr. Dayal and his colleagues. It is no use talking about the United Nations, as people so often do, as though we were not part of it ourselves. We have a major responsibility and a major interest in its success.
I agree with the hon. Member for Lancaster that Colonel Mobutu's régime is not the kind of régime to which the United Nations can give its support. Mr. Dayal spoke a little while ago in a report to New York of Mobutu's illegal and arbitrary acts and said that they were one of the greatest menaces to the objectives of the United Nations operations in the Congo. Mr. Hammarskjöld backed him up. The Belgians refused to take any notice and the Americans immediately rallied to their support. We should back Mr. Dayal and Mr. Hammarskjöld, whatever the Americans may do.
I agree with the hon. Member's view of what is the right solution. I believe


that we should now resummon the so-called Congolese Parliament. It was elected and we should resummon it. We opposed that for a long time. I understand now from the latest news from the General Assembly that we have come round to that view. I believe that we should call together a constitutional conference with all the leaders of the different movements in the Congo; everybody from Lumumba to Tsombe.
I believe that this could be done. Above all—this is where a vital change is necessary in our Government's policy—we should stop approaching this in the spirit of the cold war. We ought immediately to co-ordinate our action with that of India and Ghana, with Mr. Nehru and Mr. Nkrumah. If necessary, it would be worth a journey by the Prime Minister to New York to take part in a special meeting of the Security Council, to which Mr. Nehru and Mr. Nkrumah could come, in order that a new start may be made.

Mr. Pitman: The right hon. Member said in effect that a great deal of action should be taken in the Congo. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) said that Mr. Lumumba should be released. Which is the exact authority, which is in effect the Government, which would take those actions in the Congo about which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken? I do not understand that.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I would summon Parliament and ask it to take the action.

Mr. Pitman: Who is Parliament and is it ever a Government?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The President, of course. Nobody denies that Kasavubu is the President of the Congo and has the power to summon Parliament. We should urge him to do it.

2.21 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): I think that last question exemplifies the difficulties with which we are faced. However, I am very glad that we have this opportunity on the last day before the Christmas Recess of debating this very important topic. I am grateful to those hon. Members who have spoken.
All of us in the House are very anxious about the position in the Congo. There is no difference whatever between

us on that. The Congo is still in the state of protracted crisis which has endured ever since it became independent last July. The difficulties under which the United Nations has been working there have been formidable indeed.
The task of the United Nations has not been made easier by destructive and ill-intentioned efforts to impugn the Secretary-General's motives and undermine his authority. The General Assembly has now ended its debate, as hon. Members will have seen from this morning's Press, without agreeing on any resolution. However, I emphasise that the debate at least showed that the majority of the members of the United Nations is firmly behind the Secretary-General in his efforts.
An effective civil administration over the whole of the Congo has yet to be established, though some progress towards this has been made under the authority of Mr. Kasavubu. In Katanga and Kasai the provincial authorities are still functioning independently of the centre. Some hon. Members have referred to the very pressing difficulty of fragmentation.
More recently, a dangerous and disquieting situation has developed in the Orientale Province where followers of Mr. Lumumba have purported to set up a rival centre of Government from that in Leopoldville and have been making brutal and irresponsible gestures of menace against the European population.
The United Nations authorities themselves have found it very difficult to work in proper harmony and co-operation with the Congolese authorities. Finally, certain States have threated to loosen the whole basis of the United Nations effort by withdrawing their contingents from the United Nations force.
This is a most serious matter which needs clearing up. The countries concerned have stated that they will remove their troops from the United Nations force, but so far they have made no move actually to withdraw them from the Congo and there seem to be no arrangements for providing for that to be effected. We very much hope that they will reconsider their attitude and will leave their troops under United Nations command. But the status and


functions of these troops in the Congo should, and indeed must, be left beyond doubt.
The scale on which the United Nations has been engaged in the Congo and the problems which it is meeting there are perhaps greater in scope than anything it has done before. The need to ensure that it does not fail in this enterprise is correspondingly great. Failure could be not only of dire consequence to the people of the Congo, and consequently to the whole future development of this important area of Africa, but a grievous blow to the standing and future efficacy of the United Nations Organisation itself.
In confronting these problems in the Congo our general objectives have from the beginning been constant. I will re-emphasise them to the House. They are those which I hope that the majority of the members of the United Nations are also following. First, we want to see conditions achieved in which the Congolese Republic can develop properly in peace and security as a united and independent State within its present frontiers. For this, the first requirement must clearly be to restore law and order and to fill the economic, technical and administrative vacuum which resulted from the disorder and breakdown of Government following the mutiny in the Force Publique last July. It is the very difficult problem of restoring law and order in which we all become involved when we start talking, as we naturally wish to talk, about the need for a proper constitutional authority and a recall of Parliament.
Secondly, we want to keep the Congo free from unwelcome interference from outside powers and prevent it becoming an arena in the cold war. What has been said today re-emphasises that.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: While Mr. Khrushchev and Russia were undoubtedly responsible in the first stages for bringing the cold war to the Congo, since Mr. Dayal's report, which Britain and America have totally failed to endorse, and since the British and American support of Mr. Kasavubu as a representative in the General Assembly, has not the tendency been for the West to bring the cold war to the Congo?

Mr. Godber: I refute that. It is not so, for reasons which I shall hope to show in the course of my remarks. Our whole position has been that we do not wish to back any particular organisation. All we want to see is some authoritative régime arise in the Congo. Mr. Kasavubu is the only one left now who one can say has any shred of authority.
As I was saying, we want to keep the Congo free from unwelcome interference. The danger of this was fully shown during the time when Mr. Lumumba was in power, when Soviet aircraft and other equipment were sent to the Congo outside the framework of the United Nations effort and were used to further plans for invading Katanga. There seems also little reason to doubt that Mr. Lumumba's henchmen in Stanleyville would look in the same direction for help if they had the chance.
The third objective, in a more limited field but of more direct and immediate importance to us, is that of ensuring the safety of British lives and property in the Congo.
In pursuing these objectives we have been guided by the principle that we must primarily rely upon and give support to the United Nations presence and effort in the Congo. Though we have a direct interest in the stability of the area because of the British Territories bordering it, we do not believe that any kind of intervention or unilateral effort to guide its affairs would be justified. This is the nub of the problem.
I must mention, although it has not been mentioned in the House today, that there have been some wild and fantastic allegations in various quarters that we have been seeking to bring the Congo under our control or to return it to some kind of colonial status, and in particular that we have been giving money and arms to Colonel Mobutu for this purpose.
I say with all the emphasis at my command that these accusations are wholly unfounded. I am glad that they have not been supported in any way in the House. But because they have been made I have thought it right to refute them from the Dispatch Box. Throughout, we have given, and continue to give, full support to the United Nations effort. We have contributed substantially to Mr. Hammarskjöld's emergency fund and


have provided aircraft for moving and supplying the Ghanaian contingent of the United Nations force.
The real rôle of the United Nations authorities has been, since the beginning, to assist the Congolese people in solving their problems. The resolution on which the presence of the United Nations force is founded speaks of giving military assistance to the Congolese Government in restoring law and order. The rôle of the United Nations civil operation is to supplement with technical assistance the efforts of the Congolese authorities to administer the country and order its economy.
The independence of the Congo is an accomplished and recognised fact. The Congo's relation with the United Nations is that of a sovereign member of the organisation. There can be no going back on Congolese independence; and the United Nations cannot, in terms of its mandate, exercise anything in the nature of tutelage or trusteeship. It could help the Congolese people towards a solution of their internal political problems and, indeed, we hope it willô but it cannot impose a solution of these problems. That, again, is the difficulty one comes up against in trying to make suggestions, as the right hon. Gentleman did, quite genuinely, to meet their difficulties.
This principle is made clear in the Security Council resolution of 9th August which
Reaffirms that the United Nations Force in the Congo will not be a party to or in any way intervene in or be used to influence the outcome of any internal conflict, constitutional or otherwise.
The right hon. Gentleman asked us to live up to that resolution; I ask him to remember those words. We believe that it is a correct principle, and it is that which the Secretary-General has faithfully been trying to carry out. These internal political issues are essentially for the Congolese people themselves to work out. They must be given both time and all the help they need to do this.
I think that it is in this light that we must view the suggestions that are now being made by some members of the United Nations—indeed, there have been echoes of them in the House—that the United Nations should pursue certain

courses of action which would amount to invading directly the internal sovereignty of the Congolese Republic and virtually trying to run the political life of the country.
Some of these suggestions were included in the resolution of Ghana and Yugoslavia and other countries, to which the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) referred when he asked me specifically about action in that respect. I have to tell him that we voted against that resolution and, because it is important, I shall seek in some detail to tell him why. I do not know whether the hon. Member has seen the actual terms of the resolution, but I will deal with the relevant points.
It included, for example, a suggestion that the United Nations should take action to secure the release of Mr. Lumumba. This is clearly a matter of internal jurisdiction for the Congolese authorities themselves. If what I have said up to now has any validity, that point must be accepted, and that is the danger in people talking in such a way, as it is so easy to do—

Mr. Stonehouse: But does the hon. Gentleman accept the authority of any one other than Colonel Mobutu?

Mr. Godber: I will come to that—I am trying to deal with these things one at a time.
It seems that charges including rebellion against the Head of State, corruption, incitement to terrorism, the illegal distribution of arms and planning to set up an insurrectionary Government in Stanleyville have been made against Mr. Lumumba, and that in the view of the Congolese authorities—

Mr. Stonehouse: And of Colonel Mobutu.

Mr. Godber: I am merely recording what has been done and said—Parliamentary immunity would not apply to an indictment of that kind. This is a matter which we must leave to them.
On the other hand, we recognise, and share, the concern that has been shown that all political leaders held under arrest in the Congo should be treated humanely, and in accordance with the rule of law. We have tried to see that this principle is recommended, both in the Resolution


that we supported in the recent debate in the Security Council and in that which we sponsored in the General Assembly—which, amongst other things, suggested that the International Red Cross should examine the conditions under which detained persons were held.
This would apply, not only to Mr. Lumumba, about whose treatment the Congolese authorities have already given some assurances—and, incidentally, he has been allowed to see his doctor—but also to the Congolese Members of Parliament who should equally be considered, who are held in Stanleyville by Mr. Lumumba's followers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear hon. Members say "Hear, hear"; I have not heard that before. There have been disquieting reports about these being maltreated, and one of them, Mr. Songolo, may lose the sight of both eyes as the result of what has been done to him. I ask hon. Members to remember that.
It has been further suggested that Belgian advisers and technicians should be withdrawn from the Congo. I think that there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about this, and it is a point of which hon. Members have made a great deal. The original Security Council resolution called upon the Government of Belgium to withdraw its troops from the Congo, and this was regarded as necessary because of the situation at the time and because the Congolese Government were insisting upon it. The Belgian Government acquiesced in that.
Following the disorders of July, large numbers of Belgians, both in business in the Congo and in the service of the Congolese administration, fled the country, leaving its economy and administration in a desperate state of hiatus. Belgian civilians have now returned, both in a private capacity to resume their business and in the employ of the Congolese authorities at their request.
It has never been our impression that the United Nations effort was intended to prevent the Congolese authorities from making arrangements with Belgian civilians to work in the Congo, any more than that there is anything wrong in British civilians working in the ex-

Colonial Territories. This is particularly the case where these people are Congo civil servants or indispensable technicians returning to their posts. Nor was it our impression that it meant that the Congo should forego the particular contribution that those technicians and officials can make because of their experience in the country. The main necessity seems to be a practical one of co-ordinating this contribution with what is being done by the United Nations and of ensuring that all concerned work together in harmony.
Another proposal, which would, in fact, amount to the United Nations virtually taking over governmental responsibility in the Congo, is that the Congolese Army should be disarmed—

Mr. Denis Healey: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but before leaving the question of the Belgian personnel, may I ask how many are with Colonel Mobutu's commissioners? We have raised this matter several times in the House. As the hon. Gentleman is already aware, Mr. Dayal, in his report in, I think, November, listed a large number of occasions on which the activities of the United Nations in the Congo had been flagrantly interfered with and prejudiced by Belgians attached to those whom the hon. Gentleman calls the "Congolese authorities". Can the hon. Gentleman say whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any action whatever on this very large number of charges that have been made against Belgian personnel by the United Nations High Commissioner?

Mr. Godber: We have, of course, discussed matters arising from this in the United Nations with many of the other representatives there. We have discussed it, of course. We are anxious to see that such Belgians as go back shall play an effective and full part, and shall certainly not inconvenience or incommode the United Nations in any way—that would be wholly contrary to our view, and we have made that clear. But it is not for us to say what the Congolese authorities should do in regard to people within their territory. Otherwise, we would be infringing on the principles that I have so far tried to set out in relation to the attitude of the United Nations in the Congo—

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: But have the British Government made a strong protest in Brussels in support of Mr. Dayal?

Mr. Godber: I do not think that Brussels is the apropriate place for any comment at all. The United Nations in New York, which is where Mr. Dayal's report was made, is obviously the place to discuss these matters.

Mr. Noel-Baker: With great respect, we ought, of course, to support Mr. Dayal in the Security Council and in the Assembly, and I ask the Minister to explain how much we have done there. However, if we want the policy of the United Nations to succeed, we have obviously also to speak very bluntly in Brussels.

Mr. Pitman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not really out of order to suggest that a request should be made to the Belgian Government about something that is clearly the responsibility of the Congo Government—[Interruption.] It is the responsibility of the Congo Government if anybody resident in that area is doing anything that is illegal or improper. The frustration of this debate comes from this wretched impersonal passive, where everyone says that Mr. Lumumba should be released, but refuses to say which is to be the Government that will release him, and also should deal with the protest from the United Nations, which should be lodged by the United Nations with that Government, and not with any other Government.

Mr. Stonehouse: Further to that point of order, this point arises directly out of Ambassador Dayal's report to the United Nations General Secretary, which made allegations against Belgium that Belgian civilians and military personnel were undermining the authority of the United Nations in the Congo. Surely, it is legitimate for us to ask the Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to protest against this Belgian interference in United Nations operations, and not merely to discuss it?

Mr. Speaker: I have not heard anything out of order, but I have heard two speeches which seem to me to be rather wandering away from the subject of order.

Mr. Godber: I, too, was wondering where the point of order arose. I have

made the position entirely clear. In fact, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, we feel that such discussions of the Dayal report as take place should take place in New York, and we have been involved in those discussions. I have made the position quite clear as to what we have done.
I was going on to talk about the position of the Congolese Army. I have said that the suggestion was made that it should be disarmed. Whatever its shortcomings, the army seems Ito be a potential factor of stability in the State, and the only instrument in the hands of the Congolese authorities for maintaining law and order. The United Nations authorities themselves have been engaged in training it for this purpose. Any attempt to disarm it would be liable to throw the Congo back into total confusion, and to produce an armed cnflict between the United Nations force and the Congolese, which could destroy the whole basis of the United Nations effort. People have to face up to this fact. They tend to talk round them, but these are the facts.

Mr. Julius Silverman: But who pays for this army? We agree with the hon. Gentleman in acquitting this Government, but somebody is paying for it. Could he tell us who is paying?

Mr. Godber: No, I am afraid I could not. I assume that it is paid for out of Congolese revenues, but I do not know. I have assured the House that the British Government have no part in that at all, and certainly no responsibility for it. This is a position which has to be faced, and I do not believe that we could possibly countenance and certainly not support the disarming of this army.
Another suggestion, and this again was contained in the particular resolution to which I have referred, was that the United Nations should secure an immediate meeting of the Congolese Parliament. That has been a proposition of the kind that we would naturally support—the principle of parliamentary Government—and it would be difficult for me to do otherwise, but I should like to think that all the countries which are now so energetically proposing its application to the Congo were themselves as closely linked to parliamentary government as we are. Be that as it may, a


properly established government in the Congo must eventually rest upon parliament, where the constitutional decisions will be taken and ratified. There is no disagreement between us on that. But to be effective, the parliament would have to be fully representative, and members from all parts of the Congo would have to feel free to attend and to express their views. This would require a better climate than now obtains. It seems to us, therefore, that there must first be some practical steps to ensure these more favourable conditions.
The prime need is for a working Congolese authority which can carry on the day-to-day administration of the country, co-operate with the United Nations and bring the secessionist elements into contact with the centre, thus making some progress towards securing the unity of the Congo by peaceful means
Mr. Kasavubu, whose position as President is generally accepted as the only constitutional authority there is in the Congo—he has been accepted by the United Nations in that capacity—seems to be the obvious starting point for this. The authorities at present acting under his aegis are already exercising some administrative responsibility. He also proposes to call a round table conference, which seems to offer an opportunity both to make a start on a constitutional settlement and to lay the foundations of a properly established government. He has already met the secessionist leaders of Katanga and Kasai in Brazzaville, and it is planned to hold further meetings in the New Year. It would seem better to build on this foundation rather than to throw everything back into confusion once more. But the decision on these constitutional matters must, as I have said, rest with the Congolese themselves, though I would emphasise the need for positive action without delay. We hope that the present visit of members of the Conciliation Commission appointed by the United Nations Advisory Committee will help this process along.
It is along these lines of progress towards a properly established civilian authority which can preserve the independence and unity of the Congo, of application of the rule of law, of continued support for the United Nations

effort in its task of keeping the peace and helping the Congolese towards these objectives that our policy in the United Nations is based. This is reflected in the resolution which we sponsored in the General Assembly, which was voted on yesterday. I do not for one moment deny or ignore the difficulties, but I am sure that the path we are following is the only feasible one. The consequences of allowing the United Nations effort to fail are only too easy to imagine.
I think that the best way in which I can conclude my speech is by quoting from what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the United Nations as recently as last Saturday during the course of his speech on the Congo, in which he said:
At no stage in the Congo tragedy have we sought any national advantage. We have not criticised individual political leaders in the Congo. We have not intervened in Congolese internal affairs. What we have done is to give tangible and whole-hearted support to the United Naitons effort. We will continue to do so with the sole objective of bringing stability and prosperity to the suffering people of the Congo and of ensuring that the United Nations itself performs its task in a manner worthy of it.
That is the spirit in which, on both sides of the House, we should go forward and that is the way in which it should be applied, because of the obscurities in the situation. I ask the House to recognise the very real difficulties and also to realise that the Government have done their best.

Mr. Healey: May I ask one question, which was put several times in the course of debate from both sides of the House? It has been remarked by many Members that the United Nations has failed to give any new directives to its representatives in the Congo, primarily because there is an estrangement between the Western Powers and some of the Afro-Asian countries on the one hand and some other Afro-Asian countries on the other. Are Her Majesty's Government planning to take any steps in order that this estrangement may be brought to an end in order to get some new decision by the United Nations which will permit United Nations representatives in the Congo to act more effectively than they are now permitted to do?

Mr. Godber: I am sorry; I thought I had dealt with that in reference to the


resolution, to which I referred several times, and which we sponsored and was voted on yesterday in the United Nations. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was defeated."] It was not defeated. It did not succeed in getting the necessary two-thirds majority, but it failed by only one vote. That is the way in which we hope we can bridge this difficulty. It was a very moderate resolution and we are naturally disappointed that it did not achieve a two-thirds majority. We felt that this was a means of making progress, and I assure the House that we are as anxious as hon. Members opposite in our objective. As we have failed once in our efforts, we must try again.

STATE SCHOLARSHIPS

2.48 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I can well understand the desire of many hon. Members to take more time to debate the most important subject of the situation in the Congo, and I am only sorry that it had to be dealt with on a day like this when, instead, it should have had a great deal more time. However, as we are now running thirty-three minutes behind schedule, I will turn at once to the next subject, which is that of State scholarships.
I do so because we had an important announcement on this matter from the Minister of Education in the last debate on education on 7th November. At that time the Minister announced that the Government were proposing to make some modifications in the income scale of university awards. He announced a principle, with which we on this side of the House are in full agreement, namely, that in future any student who obtains at least two "A" level passes in the examination for the General Certificate of Education and also a place at a university will be eligible for an award.
The Minister then went on to say that as from the summer of 1962 no further awards of State scholarships would be made. The State scholarship system as we know it now would cease to be. He said no more about it. He did not argue the point, or say which of the arguments in favour of it in the Anderson Report he accepted or which ones he was doubtful about. He simply made the bald statement, and he proceeded to say that in addition to abolishing State scholarships, in future, winners of open scholarships and other university prizes are to be allowed to retain up to £100 a year. He amplified this to the extent of saying:
We want something to happen as a result of that last decision. We very much hope we shall quickly see the foundation of scholarships at provincial universities. Such scholarships have hitherto been of little interest to benefactors, since the prize money would have led to a reduction in the award from the Ministry. In future, if a scholarship is founded the money will be kept by the scholar."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1960; Vol. 629, c. 680.]
It seems to us that this subject is of sufficient importance to ask for a very much fuller explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary than we had from


the Minister on that occasion. I am making no complaint about the Minister not having gone into the matter more fully then, because we were discussing many other matters, but this subject is of extreme interest to schools, universities and scholars themselves.
It was dealt with in some detail in the Anderson Report, which devoted the whole of Chapter 4 to the question and came to a certain conclusion. It is also touched upon in a note of reservation by Professor Brinley Thomas, who disagreed with his colleagues on this matter. The main body of opinion on the Anderson Committee came to the conclusion that the State scholarship system had outlived its usefulness, and in its report it used rather picturesque language when it said:
This complex system has now become stranded, like some prehistoric creature, in a world for which its qualities are no longer fitted.
Professor Brinley Thomas took up the cudgels particularly in favour of the scholars from smaller grammar schools in this country, and he also used picturesque language in his note of reservation. He said:
The abolition of state scholarships will make university and college scholarships the sole peaks of prestige surrounded by a flat plain of local authority awards.
We should discuss the differences of viewpoint which underly these two statements.
In order to enlighten any hon. Members who are not familiar with the very complicated system of State scholarships, I should explain that at present there are four types of State scholarship. There are the ordinary ones, the ones which are supplemental to awards made by universities and other bodies, a small number of technical State scholarships, and scholarships for mature students. I shall deal with the last type later on. The scholars with wham I am particularly concerned today are the ordinary State scholars who obtain their award as a result of their G.C.E. "A" level and "S" level examinations. At the moment the target figure for these is about 1,850 each year. As some fall by the wayside or obtain other awards which are supplemented, the number allotted is rather more than 2,000 in any one year. The method of award is that a certain num

ber of scholarships is allotted by the Ministry to the nine bodies which conduct the G.C.E. examinations throughout the country, in proportion to the number of candidates in their regions who have been entered for two or more "A" level subjects.
The interesting thing to note about this is that although the precise requirements for State scholarships vary in detail between the nine examining bodies they are all governed by the Regulations laid down by the Minister, and they are all very much higher than the two "A" level passes now to be taken as the standard for local authority awards. In other words, our State scholars have had demands made upon them which have not been made in respect of local authority awards and, as we understand it, will not be made in respect of them in future. There has therefore been a recognition of extra ability and academic achievement.
It is also true that, generally speaking, the State scholars in their subsequent academic careers have done better than the holders of ordinary local authority education awards. Nevertheless, in recent years, with greater uniformity and scaling up of the ordinary local education authority awards, the State scholars have had virtually no financial advantage; it has been a matter of acknowledgement of academic achievement and excellence. As the Anderson Report, in paragraph 74, says:
In short, the financial rewards attaching to state scholarships are no longer any better than those attaching to the general run of local awards and a case can no longer exist for maintaining state scholarships as a means of setting a standard of emoluments; this function has been swallowed up in the development of the awards system as a whole.
Incidentally, it points out that State scholarships are not generally awarded in Scotland, and it gives that as one reason for the proposed abolition. I could suggest, in passing, that the standard of achievement in Scotland might be even higher than it is if State scholarships were awarded there.
I accept the statement that State scholarships are no longer needed simply to supply the basic necessities of academic life. That is no longer their function; we have caught up with that. We should now ask ourselves whether there is another function for which


State scholarships should nevertheless be retained. I believe that there is; I believe that the principle of some extra incentive—provided that we have made the necessary minimum provision for everybody who is capable of qualifying at a reasonable level—has a real value. I am fortified in this opinion by the comments on the proposal to abolish State scholarships made by certain associations who also feel that some incentive is worth while. Professor Brinley Thomas made this point cogently in his note of reservation. The Headmistresses' Association has also come out strongly in favour of retaining State scholarships on this basis, and the Headmasters' Association, while not suggesting that we should continue with the same procedure, is also in favour of retaining some kind of comparable incentive to the State scholarship.
There is no doubt at all that for a boy or girl of outstanding intelligence there is a very strong case to be made for encouraging the stretching of that intelligence and the work which should go with it to the utmost. For the able boy or girl, I feel that this is a thoroughly healthy thing to do. Like anything else, of course, it is open to abuse, but, properly handled, this idea that one should have something to aim at which really stretches one's powers is worth while and should be encouraged. It is something which should lead to the general maintenance of a higher standard of academic ability in the schools and subsequently, on the foundations there built, in the universities.
If this is so, I must take issue with the contention of the Anderson Committee which, in paragraph 83 of its Report, said that
it would be wrong to make from public funds additional or 'bonus' payments to a particular class of award holder … the maximum value of an award should be enough to cover a student's assessed needs but none should look to the taxpayer or ratepayer for the payment of sums above this maximum.
I do not accept that as a matter of principle. It may be a matter of expediency, and one must look at the other possibilities, but as a matter of principle I contest it. If it is granted that incentives of the kind I have described would have the general effect of improving the standard of academic excellence in schools and universities, it

seems to me that this is a perfectly proper field in which public money should, with discretion, be employed. Therefore, I do not accept the principle enunciated in that paragraph. It does not seem to me to be a matter of principle at all. If the incentive is a valuable one, then it is, I should have thought, necessary to support it out of public money, and the question whether it is or is not required becomes a matter of judgment and expediency in relation to any other provision which may be made in the matter.
The question whether the State scholarships should not be completely abolished but should be brought within the proposal that a certain amount of money should be kept by the scholar should be looked at in the light of the existing and potential provision. The Minister in making his statement, and the Anderson Committee itself in paragraph 87 of its Report, suggested that if one allowed the scholars concerned to keep, as they are not at present allowed to keep, emoluments from awards other than State scholarships, even though scholars might be obtaining a certain amount of maintenance from public funds, that would be such an encouragement to benefactors that provision from public funds would not be required. Not only would the existing endowments be more attractive because people would be allowed to keep a certain amount but also benefactors would be encouraged to add to the number of scholarships available.
In the hope that you might select this subject, Mr. Speaker, I took the trouble to write to the registrars of several provincial universities. I express my gratitude to them for their kindness. They were good enough to send me a great deal of information about the position at the universities other than Oxford, Cambridge and London. I did not attempt to guage the situation at those three universities because I thought that it would be too complex and in any case they are sufficiently strong magnets and they have sufficient endowments, I think, to be of less importance in this matter.
I found, as I expected, that in the provincial universities of England and Wales there is considerable disparity in the amount of endowment available.


Some colleges are reasonably well endowed and they have a fairly large number of entrance scholarships, while others have very little indeed. Manchester, for instance, is fairly well endowed and even some of the relatively smaller universities, for reasons of history or local patriotism, are fairly well endowed, but, at the other end of the scale, Swansea, for instance, has only six very modest entrance awards and the University College of North Staffordshire at Keele has none at all. There is a very wide range in the existing universities and a considerable disparity between what one or another can offer to prospective students.
There is also a very considerable disparity between the number of awards at the disposal of the university and the number of State scholars who are studying there at present. In other words, there are some universities which cannot offer very much relatively in the way of entrance awards but which are extremely popular among State scholars and therefore have at present many people of academic distinction studying there. To give one example, the University of Bristol can offer 33 entrance scholarships or exhibitions, although they are relatively modest. The scholarships are £50 a year and the exhibitions only £40 a year. But it has currently 340 State scholars. Some of them may be taking more than a three-year course, but about 100 State scholars a year choose to study at Bristol. There will be no additional recognition in future unless Bristol is able to obtain a great deal of benefaction.
What are the prospects of extra money being available to the universities to offer some incentive awards to people who would now be State scholars? Again I contacted the registrars. I was able to obtain only their personal opinion, but I found very few who were in the least optimistic that the suggestion of the Minister would be fulfilled. They pointed out that there are at the moment very large building appeals for new universities as well as for existing universities. They also pointed out that the industrialists who finance a certain number of scholarships will certainly not alter the basis of these scholarships as long as a parental means test remains.
The object of many industrial scholarships is to provide the wherewithal for parents who get nothing from public funds and who are not likely to get anything while the parental means test remains, even in a modified form. It is also true to say that, on the whole, the industrial benefactors favour science rather than arts students and men rather than women. Therefore, if we are to rely on future benefactions we must recognise that there will be these discrepancies which I have mentioned. Some areas will be more favoured than others and it is likely that they will be weighted in favour of science and men students.
In addition, if State scholarships are abolished and incentives are increased in the universities which are well endowed, students will be attracted from the colleges which are less well endowed to those which are better endowed even more than they are at present. There is, of course, the flow towards Oxford and Cambridge, but it will be the business of the headmaster or headmistress to advise boys and girls to look round to see which "Redbrick" colleges have good endowments and to suggest that their students should try there rather than at other places.
There will be this shopping around, not merely for entrance, but also for awards. Once a person is allowed to keep up to £100 per annum of an award, it becomes something which is well worth trying for and there will be extra strain on pupils in the schools, not merely to try to secure entrance, but to try to get awards in places where the largest awards are available. Many of us believe that that can be a thoroughly unhealthy proceeding, especially for pupils from smaller schools which have not as good lines of communication to the universities and colleges as the large endowed schools and grammar schools, which are accustomed to sending each year large numbers of students to the universities.
It seems to me, therefore, that the premise on which both the Minister and the Anderson Committee are working is at least questionable that there will be, in anything like the near future, certainly not by 1962, a considerable increase in the number of benefactions. At present, they are very unevenly spread, both in


incidence and in amount, and it seems quite unreasonable that at the same time as allowing up to £100 a year to be kept out of existing awards, the Minister should abolish altogether the State scholarships.
My proposal to the Minister is that the matter should be reconsidered and that a number of State scholarships should still be available for children from all over the country, although they would be of particular value to those from the small grammar schools. At the same time as the ceiling is being raised on what may be kept from other awards, the State scholars should be allowed to have over and above their maintenance, which will be available to anybody else, a sum, I suggest, of about £50. A ceiling of £100 would be too high. What is wanted is a rather small sum, just a matter of recognition, for which I should say that £50 all round would be adequate, with the proviso, which already exists, of the once-for-all maximum of £100 permitted as a prize for somebody of outstanding merit and not as a regular maintenance award. This would be a much healthier approach to the whole question of State scholarships and would avoid the difficulties which I have mentioned.
I want briefly to refer to the mature students and students who might wish to take their first degrees, not in a British university, but in a Commonwealth university. Mature students are referred to several times in the Report of the Anderson Committee, which states in particular the view that no special provision need be made for them because
we are confident that the special classes of student"—
the Committee was referring to mature and technical students—
… should have no difficulty in securing ordinary awards, and that it is unnecessary to retain limited competitive schemes for them.
I cannot believe that the members of the Anderson Committee had any real knowledge of adult education and of the way in which the mature student scholarships are awarded. I have discussed this in detail with those, for example, at Coleg Harlech and at Ruskin, who have great experience in the matter. These students ought not to be expected to take two or more A-level subjects in G.C.E. examinations. That is a foolish way of tackling the problem. The present

method of essay and interview is far more suitable and I hope very much that the Ministry is proposing to deal with these people on these lines.
The students who might wish to study at Commonwealth universities are a new problem. The Anderson Committee discussed it at some length. It laid no difficulty in the way, but, equally, it made no positive proposal about how they should be dealt with. I am sure that this matter cannot be left to local education authorities. Until we know exactly what proposals the Minister has for dealing with university awards in general in relation to the education authorities, one cannot comment beyond saying that I hope very much that the Ministry has ideas in view which would make it possible in exceptional cases for people who might wish to take their first degrees in Commonwealth universities to be enabled to do so. I shall be glad to have an assurance from the Minister on these two relatively small but important points. On the main question, I hope very much that the Minister will reconsider his proposal at the same time to abolish the State scholarships and to allow much Increased monetary incentives to the holders of other awards.

3.15 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: I have pressed for a number of years that there should be a minimum academic standard which, if the sixth former succeeded in achieving it, would gain him as of right a university grant, and, indeed, a place at a university. Therefore, I want first to congratulate the Minister on accepting the Anderson Committee's Report as far as that goes and in recommending to local authorities that two subjects at advanced level plus acceptance by a university should qualify for university grant.
Having said that, and not having time to argue the case for what I have just said, I believe in the reward of extra merit. Like most Socialists, I am not an egalitarian. Our criticism of society is not the difference between the rewards it gives to citizens but the unjust nature of the distribution of rewards.
During most of my teaching life the State scholarship we are discussing now has been a mark of distinction and I should be sorry to see it go. In later


years the small prize it carried escaped the means test—a means test which I would still urge the Minister to abolish.
Here I would interpose that the National Union of Students, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president, is unanimous in recommending to the Minister that he should still have second thoughts and abolish his objection to the recommendation of the Anderson Committee that the means test should go. An undergraduate is an adult and he has a right to be treated as an adult, and he is earning his living while at the university, and that means test militates against the independence of these young men—and women.
It is true that the number of State scholarships has increased from the handful it was in the days of the first Labour Government, who set them up, to several thousand now, thanks largely to a big expansion under the late Ellen Wilkinson and the late George Tomlinson, but though the number of State scholarships has increased the standard is still very high. It is also true that the modern system of financing university grants levels out any financial advantages which a State scholar used to have, but all State scholarships are awarded on the scholarship papers taken in G.C.E. and they indicate that at any rate at the moment of award—I am not sure that future developments are all truly predictable, especially among several thousand—the best academic brains in our grammar schools win in an all-nation competition.
It is an honour to win such an award. A school is proud to record it triumphs in this field, and it means something to the universities looking for keen intellects among candidates seeking admission, and a sixth former who wins a State scholarship has a better chance of securing a place at the university of his or her choice than one who does not. Moreover, the continued award of these 2,000 or 3,000 State scholarships can relieve the universities of some of the burden placed upon them and local authority interviewing committees of selecting the intake into the universities. If we can relieve the universities of the burden of sorting the wheat from the chaff, those who have not reached the high academic standard of the State scholarships, we can do them a service.
I am still troubled about social selection which still goes on in the universities. A recent report from the universities called "Application for Admission to the Universities" contains some valuable tables. One shows that of the intake to the universities in 1955, 74 per cent. came from the professional, managerial and clerical classes, 21·7 per cent. from skilled manual workers, 3·4 per cent. from semi-skilled manual workers, and 0·9 per cent. from the children of manual workers. I have said before that unless one believes in the transmission of acquired characteristics there must be born into the humblest families in this country as into the noblest lads and lassies of ability. There are still barriers all along the line. Universities are not yet what I believe they will some day become, a social cross-section of this British community of ours. Similarly, the figures for Oxford and Cambridge show that only 34 per cent. of the Cambridge undergraduates come from the State schools where there are 6½ million children, whereas 59·8 per cent. come from the private schools where there are only 250,000 of our children. For Oxford the figures are 40·5 per cent. from the State schools against 44·4 per cent. from the private schools.
There are still closed scholarships in private schools which at some time should be merged into the national pattern of national scholarships. The State scholarships, at any rate, have the advantage that they are open to all on exactly the same basis, and as State grammar schools rapidly approach parity with the best public schools—and they have already surpassed the worst—the children have a nearer and nearer equal chance of what I regard as a high honour and distinction.
As this year ends the Minister is coping with grim problems of providing enough teachers for the next critical two years. I can understand sometimes the feeling that his Department must have after this terrific achievement of fifteen years of school building, of expanding the size of the teaching profession and the extension of training provisions. At present the Department must be exasperated at the demand made again and again for more. But 1961 will be a crisis year in a number of ways which I cannot mention at the moment. There


will be a crisis in the supply of teachers and a crisis caused by the simple fact that, despite our expansion of the training colleges, we are faced in 1961 with a larger intake to the universities than we can possibly cope with.
The Parliamentary Secretary, coping as he is with all his problems, will have the full backing of everyone on this side of the House in 1961 if he tackles them with energy. I ask him to leave this question of the university State scholarships just where it is. Let us say to the sixth formers in 1961, "Go all out by all means for the minimum qualification of two subjects at "A" level which with university selection will guarantee you a university grant, but do not be content with the minimum". I ask the hon. Gentleman to say to all sixth formers, "Aim high and see whether you can bring to yourself and your school the glory of winning one of these scholarships". I ask him to consider seriously what my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has said.

3.23 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): Like the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), I am grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) for bringing forward this subject on our last day of term. It is a subject which well deserves the airing that her introductory remarks have enabled us to give it. I hope that the House in considering the matter, and bearing in mind the observations of the hon. Member for Itchen, will be willing to look at the whole of the recommendations of the Anderson Committee together, and particularly at those which my right hon. Friend has informed the House the Government are prepared to accept and put into operation as soon as can be conveniently arranged.
We cannot look at the proposals relating to the four different kinds of State scholarships in isolation from some of the other recommendations. First, we must be clear that my right hon. Friend's acceptance, so far, embraces a recommendation that a student who gets a minimum of two "A" level subjects in the G.C.E. examination and is accepted by a university for a place there will qualify for an award. This is the underlying condition upon which we must rely

in our consideration of all the other matters to which reference has been made in the debate.
A new situation will arise for the universities and the students as a result of that recommendation. It means that everyone who gets those qualifications—two "A" levels and acceptance by a university for a place—will qualify for an award based on the scale which is to be announced very shortly and which we are at present discussing with the local education authorities, and whose outline my right hon. Friend announced to the House a few days ago.
Once that situation comes into operation—in 1961, we hope—it will be unnecessary for there to be a separate system of awards to ameliorate financial hardship. The system of State scholarships inaugurated some years ago and developed in recent years to provide the means by which a student could take up a place that he had otherwise won, no longer applies. Under the new system a student will not be in the position of having to seek from outside the local education authority by some different means the financial support to enable him to undertake his course at the university; so that the financial basis of the State scholarship system is removed.
I come now to the point to which the hon. Lady referred and which was added to by the hon. Gentleman, that there is a prestige significance attaching to the winning of a State scholarship. Under the old system State scholarships were awarded to students who did well in the G.C.E. "A" level examination. I put it briefly: they were those who passed at the top of the various lists relating to each of the examining boards for the G.C.E. "A" level examination. They were assumed to be, and in most cases were, able to take honours degree courses at the university of their choice or at the university which had finally accepted them. But they were by no means the only honours students in the universities. They were surrounded by a very large army of similar students in the universities in addition to their colleagues who, like themselves, had State scholarships. So the distinction that they had was more in name than in anything else. Their distinction as honours scholars was very widely shared indeed, and the flat plain which Professor Brinley Thomas talks


about is not really quite so monotonous as he would have us believe, and his picturesque description of the situation is a little less accurate than it might have been had he chosen his words more carefully.

Mrs. White: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that the qualifications for State scholarships are considerably higher than the qualifications for local authority awards now envisaged?

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Lady continually relates her criticism of our proposals to the system which applied before the other recommendations of the Anderson Committee were accepted, and I hope to show that this is so. What I am now saying is that the State scholarship holders were not by any means an exclusive body of honours students in our universities and that the plain was, as I have said, not as flat as Professor Brinley Thomas described it.
What is happening now is that all students with the two "A" levels and a place at a university will qualify for and will automatically receive a local authority award. Leading to that situation, they will find themselves in competition with all the other students who would have places in universities. But the House knows full well that the number of places in our universities, although it will grow increasingly rapidly, is still very far from sufficient to meet the demand. There is no need, therefore, for this additional incentive to spur students on in their sixth form to give of their best. Two "A" levels will, in fact, become increasingly the minimum which is long left behind, and better than two "A" levels, and probably a good deal better, will be very much needed by any student who hopes to be accepted by a university. The incentive to do well will in short be provided by the competition in the race itself. I have no doubt that it will be sufficient of a spur to make sure that those who have these ambitions will, in the course of their sixth form careers, be compelled to stretch themselves to the limits of their capability.

Dr. King: Surely the argument the hon. Gentleman has put up so far applies to every prize in the world? It applies to open scholarships. If a boy wins an open scholarship to Jesus College,

Oxford, the boy who did not get it but who just failed to get it is just inferior to him in ability. The argument so far is an argument for abolishing all distinction.

Mr. Thompson: I will deal with the effect of the new situation upon the competition for the open and closed scholarships in all the universities. I am bound to tell the hon. Gentleman, in reply to his specific interjection, that there will always be both successes and failures, and all kinds of degrees of success, but that is a facet of life which neither he, nor I, nor any machinery that we can devise will alter. We might as well learn to live with it.
I have said that the incentive to get a place in a university in an increasingly competitive field will itself provide the spur for the students to give of their best in their sixth form days. I hope that will be so. We are, of course, aware of the fact that this intense competition for places in the universities will have imposed some strains on the courses which students will follow in their sixth form careers. The curriculum of the sixth form is already heavily overloaded, and all who consider this matter are concerned that we should do what we can to lighten this pressure.
I think the House should know that we are now ready to have discussions with the responsible authorities of the universities and the colleges to see how far the new arrangements can help to ameliorate the bad results of these pressures. The Secondary School Examination Council has already put up some proposals on which we are seeking opinions before we make recommendations.
It seemed to me that the hon. Lady confused her thinking about how the new system would deal with this question of the prizes that can be won by those who do exceptionally well or who are exceptionally bright. Indeed, she went so far as to say that she would quote some universities which had exceptionally few prizes but nevertheless had many State scholars. That seemed to me to cut right across her earlier argument that one needed some special incentive. She quoted the State scholarship as attracting students to any given university, when in fact it works the opposite way in some cases. Indeed, that is evidence of the


complicated nature of the whole system of university admissions. It is true that Oxford and Cambridge, for example, have a larger proportion of prizes to offer to would-be entrants and therefore it is not unnatural to find that the competition for places in Oxford and Cambridge is so keen that they have the pick of the cream of the students from all over the country.

Mrs. White: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, under the future arrangements when holders of open awards will be allowed to keep up to £100 of those awards, the position will be very different? The universities which at present have State scholars but no endowments are fearful of that situation. They say that at the moment it does not make much difference, because holders of open awards do not keep the emoluments thereof, but if in future they are allowed to, as these universities have no counterbalancing awards to offer, students will be attracted to places where open awards are available.

Mr. Thompson: I am about to deal with the situation resulting from the offering of this higher proportion of prizes, exhibitions, and awards in the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge.

Mrs. White: I was not thinking of Oxford and Cambridge, which have hitherto had their own private means test.

Mr. Thompson: They still have, as far as I know, and I see no reason why they should not. That is a matter for them.
The position after acceptance of the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend will be that the colleges and universities will be able to offer prizes and allow those prizes to be retained by the winners. This will mean that there will be competition for those prizes. But the competition for those prizes will be nothing new. Indeed, that is the very competition about which a good many critics have already complained.
The fact is that whether there are extra prizes or not, whether the student can retain them or not, will not alter the attraction of Oxford and Cambridge colleges for the best students in the country. We have to take account of the fact that Oxford and Cambridge have

over 500 years of history, 500 years or more of fame, and students will be attracted to seek for themselves the benefits of this. But we believe that as a result of the student being allowed to retain up to £100 of the prize that he wins in each of the years he is in college, other benefactors will be encouraged to offer prizes at more of the civic universities in different parts of the country. I certainly hope that that will be so.
The hon. Lady referred to two other points to which I feel I should reply. The House should know why my right hon. Friend made his announcement in the form that he did about the State scholarships, leaving out any special reference to technical State scholarships and mature State scholarships. We propose that the technical State scholarships should go, since there is a recognised avenue along which applicants for those scholarships can proceed from their technical college, or whatever it may be, to the university that they want to join. But we propose that mature State scholarships shall be retained mainly in their present form. The present system of a paper and an interview is to be kept and the familiar processes already known to those who are interested, will continue to be followed.
There are still discussions to undertake in some of these matters before the system is finalised, but that is broadly the basis on which we hope the system will work in future.
The hon. Lady referred to the Commonwealth scholarships and to the suggestion that British students should study in Commonwealth universities. Here again, this is largely a matter for the local authorities which will be responsible for administering these awards, and we propose to bring this matter forward in discussion with them, since we entirely concur with her view that there are real advantages to be gained by British students following courses at colleges in other parts of the Commonwealth. I hope that we shall be able to announce a successful outcome to those discussions before long.
I am aware that the cover that I have been able to give to the wide subject which the hon. Lady introduced has been inadequate, and I apologise for that fact.


She knows that the House is at present under some pressure for time, and I have no wish to spoil the opportunities for the airing of other subjects which remain to be discussed. I hope that if there is any part of the ground which she regards as important and which I have not covered, she will let me know, and I shall do my best to give her further information.

COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE PROGRAMME

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: I believe the subject of a British communications satellite programme to be one of momentous importance to the House and to the country, and I very much regret that the House cannot have more time in which to debate it today. I hope that those hon. Members on both sides of the House who are associated with me in this matter will have time to speak, but I am sure that they will understand that I have not a long time to present a case which involves an historic decision—that is no understatement—by the Government.
In the Blue Streak debate I said that a nation which allows the main branch of its technology to stand still and which fails to direct its scientific manpower cannot expect to be competitive in the twentieth century. Since that debate nothing of a practical nature has happened to indicate that the Government appreciate the significance of this point in respect of its application to certain fields of space research. The Government must expect criticism of a far sharper nature on these matters today and in the future. I am bound to say that in regard to the application of satellites for communication purposes the Government still do not seem to have grasped the technological and commercial possibilities. They are, says the Post Office, making studies, but for how long have they been making them? I know that they have sent a mission to the United States and also that their engineering department has some knowledge of the subject, but what machinery have they set up of an effective kind, beyond some desultory talks with certain firms and scientists? They really must come clean on this matter for, as I shall

show, time is running very short for Britain to maintain any kind of independent position in the field of space communications.
Is this due to an attitude of mind on scientific subjects on the part of the present system of Government? I think it is and I think it is for back-bench Members of this House and of another place to seek by debate an approach to these problems which is up to date and not hidebound by classical methods of administration, and, in some cases, ignorance of basic scientific concepts. As Members of Parliament we can seldom be technicians in this field, but I think we can show a willingness to follow scientific progress. I think, too, that many people both inside and outside this House feel that only schoolboys will see the first benefits of satellite communications. This is absolute nonsense. My hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General—I am glad to see that she is present for this debate, as most of what I am going to say is directed to the Post Office—in answering the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) this morning about what studies had been made into these possibilities, said that it was "early days".
Early days in what sense? It is certainly not early days for the American programme, about which I wish to say something to the House. It is not early days to make proper investigation into the feasibility of a communications satellite, particularly as we have not even decided yet on the launching vehicle. If this is the attitude of the Government Department which is chiefly concerned, that is to say, the Post Office, then my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister ought to order an urgent inquiry into the whole problem. I am going to suggest that he should set up a space communications committee, a special body, at Cabinet level and give it publicity throughout industry, both public and private. It is not a question of early days; this application of space research is virtually in the engineering stage, as I shall show.
As I said, I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General present, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation, who, I understand, is to reply to this debate, has always shown a very


intelligent and keen interest in the subject. I speak as one of his predecessors in answering awkward debates in the past, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not take personally what I am saying, but that he will, of course, look at the record. We have had several debates on space research of a rather nebulous character and many hon. Members have taken an active part in bringing this matter before the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) has done Trojan work in the Council of Europe and the hon. Members for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) and Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) have for several years pressed this matter, as has the hon. Member for Pembroke.
Although this debate is limited to satellite communicants, I would make mention of what has been happening in the past in regard to space research as a whole. As long ago as May, 1959, the Prime Minister said that design studies were being put in hand for adopting military rockets for space purposes, and in a debate on 22nd February, 1960, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) was informed that work was still in hand on the Blue Streak and Black Knight projects for space research. On 29th July, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation said that we should not have to wait very long. Well, in my opinion, we have been waiting much too long. The question is, how long can de Havilland's and the taxpayers be expected to keep the Blue Streak programme going without any sign from on high as to what is going to happen?
I agree that there should be international discussions and I am speaking of a British programme in the widest sense of that word. But I am not of the opinion that Her Majesty's Government's decision depends on these international discussions. We have already been told by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation that Blue Streak would be available to those taking part in a European programme and it is clear that we have something to sell. If things go on as they are, I am afraid it will be too late to reactivate the Blue Streak programme. That would be a complete disaster.
The House and those in another place formed an all-party committee on space research, of which I had the honour to be chairman, in the earlier part of this year. Hon. Members from both sides of this House and noble Lords have had discussions with the representatives of various firms—de Havillands, Hawker Siddeley, E.M.I. Electronics and Pye Telecommunications. We are indebted to the representatives of those firms, particularly to Mr. Pardoe, Dr. Hilton, Mr. Brinkley of Pye and others for the very useful information on their studies into the possibility of an intercommunications programme. We are also indebted to the British Interplanetary Society. The object of our all-party committee is to get reliable information on these matters.
We have studied proposals for using British satellites and British launchers and most of us are convinced that it is an attractive economic proposition for this country. On this basis the cost of the further development of Blue Streak and Black Knight is justified. My hon. Friend should impress this on the Augustan scholars of the Treasury, because I believe it can be established that this is a feasible proposition. There are also other potential benefits in space research which we shall not have time to discuss today.
On the question of communications, the future responsibilities of the Post Office and possible commercial benefits to the Post Office, it is relevant to say that at the moment the British Commonwealth handles half the world's international traffic through our successful investment in the past in long-distance submarine cables and radio-telephone systems. I should mention the proposal for a new round the world cable, the so-called Commonwealth cable, which, I understand, is to cost about £88 million.
Although that is so, there is imminent and immense competition from the American telephone companies through the Bell Telephone Company and the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, which are launching vast programmes for satellite communications. I hope the hon. Member for Bosworth will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, because he knows a great deal about the proposals of the Bell Telephone Company. The A.T. and T. has a proposal


for twenty-six ground stations and fifty satellites in operation, producing 600 telephone channels and one television channel. That is the sort of scale on which the Americans are proposing to work. If these proposals were accepted it is thought that they would provide part coverage of the world—and we are talking about a world telephone service—possibly in three to five years.
My theory, which is shared by many who are associated with me in these studies, is that our customers will lose interest in our cables if that development of American satellites takes place on a world basis without our doing anything to supplement it by a British satellite system. In any event, our cables are at present overloaded. I wish to make a few remarks about the actual proposals for the use of satellites for communication purposes and how they should be launched. It is well known to those who have studied the matter—although I certainly would not claim technical knowledge of these questions—that a satellite's height above the ground makes it a very suitable vehicle for use as a radio relay station. We can have a passive satellite simply reflecting radio waves back to the earth or an active satellite deriving electric power from the sun through solar cells to drive radio equipment and to retransmit signals. These are the types of satellite which we are considering when talking of a global public telephone service.
I hope that other hon. Members will have a few minutes in the debate, because they are aware that de Havilland and Hawker-Siddeley have made some very constructive proposals and have gone into the economics of these matters. They have proposals, for instance, to launch satellites of 300 and 400 lb. into orbit at 5,000 to 6,000 miles altitude. The proposals of the two firms differ slightly, one of them being on a 24-hour basis and one only for the day-time, but they all agree that these are feasible with the Blue Streak—Black Knight type of rocket launcher. Whether the programme is limited to daylight or not and whether different emphasis is put on the type of orbit used, there can be no doubt about the economic possibilities.
I ask again how much the Post Office knows about this. May we be told what

they are doing about it? I believe that this matter needs co-ordination, as I said earlier in my speech, at a very high level and that it is a matter for the Prime Minister himself. If the Post Office does know, how far has it advised my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to investment in these proposals for the future benefit of the Post Office and what plans has it made?
The second point is how are these satellites to be launched? Again, I cannot go into the matter in any great detail. In the debate on Blue Streak I mentioned that I am a director of a firm which has a financial interest in Blue Streak, and I should mention that again. I should like the Government to come down very definitely in favour of the Blue Streak—Black Knight programme. Woomera is an ideal launching site, and by making Black Knight the upper stage of this launching vehicle I am sure that it could be done efficiently, because we know that Black Knight is accurate and we know that Blue Streak is technically of a high order. This would best be done through a single agency or a consortium for manufacture.
I turn to the economics of this problem. Rough estimates over a 20-year programme allow for £1 million for each attempted launching of the rocket and £1 million approximately for each ground station—and we shall be using ground stations. There is a set of figures which have been produced and which I hope will be studied by the Post Office and the Government generally most carefully. They show that this is an economic proposition. I need hardly say that I hope that the technical supervision by the Government which the Public Accounts Committee has recommended for guided missiles will also be applied here; I should say that as a matter of responsibility. But over a 20-year period it would cost only £70 million for launchings—that is to say, 70 launchings; and £7 million for the maintenance of the satellite. The maintenance of the ground stations would cost more—£160 million—making a total outlay of £243 million in a 20-year programme. The actual cost in the first year would be £7 million, rising to the highest annual outlay of about £20 million.
The next thing is the cost rate per minute per channel, in which hon. Members and the Government no doubt will take an interest when discussing this problem in the future. The subject merits a far longer debate than that we are having today, and I hope that on a future occasion we shall be able to have a much more full-dress debate on it. It is calculated by these companies that the cost rate per minute per channel would be about £1 for the first three years and 10s. for the next three years. The income shows a gross profit of £90 million in the third year. In the seventeenth year we should be down to 6d. per minute per channel, with an annual gross profit of £50–£60 million in the later years. If hon. Members will study those figures, I think they will agree that they would compare very favourably with almost any trend of reduction in the present high international telephone rates of from £1 to £1 5s. per minute. In any case it would show an economic trend.
These costs exclude research and development on Blue Streak; the total cost, as the House has been told, was £70 million up to April, 1960. If we allow £70 million for the subsequent space development programme these costs could certainly be borne by the communication system itself and could be amortised on a basis which would prove economic. They are rough estimates, but they should be urgently studied.
I will finish so that other hon. Members can say what they wish about this very important matter, but I conclude by saying that this House should insist, if necessary, on further discussion after the Recess on this question of an all-British system. Using American satellites is not, I consider, a serious proposition. I think it is an absolute fallacy to say that it would be less expensive. This is a civil and commercial programme. What would the Americans think they were entitled to charge us? In the commercial field I do not think the Americans would give the General Post Office the same facilities as they would give the American telephone companies in competition. On the question of launching sites and facilities, I do not believe that the use of American satellites would make sense economically.
I believe I have shown figures which, if they are studied, will show that we

are completely justified in undertaking our own satellite programme and our own launching programme as well.
I repeat that in my opinion the solution is for my right hon. Friend to set up an organisation linking industry and the Government at Cabinet level to get things going at top priority. I have some experience at a junior Ministerial level of how difficult these things are to do, but I am sure that is the right way to do it. I hope that I have convinced hon. Members and my hon. Friend that British space vehicles are justified in their own right and I repeat to the House that this is a most momentous and historic decision. I hope that it has fired the imaginations of hon. Members and of the Government and that there will be a desire for action.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: Fortunately, the shortage of time has not prevented the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) from making a most excellent and comprehensive speech. In it the hon. Member has put forward the bones of an argument for a British space programme and, in particular, for a communication satellite, which we are talking about today. The trouble behind this is that the Government do not realise that the competitive position of Britain is all-important for future exports. It is no use coasting along on yesterday's ideas when other nations are pushing ahead. The technologies are important. It is not science fiction, as the Government seem to think. It is hard cash. Yet the Government go on dithering without making a decision.
In February this year I sent a memorandum on behalf of the British Interplanetary Society to the Prime Minister. That memorandum urged immediate action. We were sent to see the Minister of Science and his advisers. They seemed to be almost totally ignorant of the practical and commercial possibilities of space and they asked us for a further memorandum to explain these commercial and practical possibilities. We sent that second memorandum immediately. Eight months later the Government still have not grasped the point.
On Monday of last week the Minister of Science gave a fatuous and frivolous interview on Southern Television on


space. In that interview the Minister for Science said the whole of his Ministry could be put into an omnibus, thus glorying in the British addiction to amateurism and showing that he did not care a hoot about space. The Minister also said that he thought no sort of proof had been produced that a space programme, whether for communication satellites or anything else, could show a commercial profit. This shows a horrifying complacency and a terrifying unwillingness to find out the facts. The Government know. Indeed, all the facts have been brought to them by private individuals. They have never gone out to try to find out about this themselves. We have had to bring them information.
The hon. Member for Abingdon has demonstrated effectively how a communication satellite system could be profitable, and I would like to reinforce that.
In October this year the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and the Bell Telephone Company officially put forward a comprehensive scheme to the Federal Communications Commission in America. As the hon. Member said, this involved a worldwide communication network using space satellites which initially would cost £60 million, but they estimated the revenue from the operations at something like £1,000 million a year. As the operating costs are very low, nearly all of this would be profit. This may be exaggerated. On the other hand, I think that the British estimate is very much too low. Any way, somewhere between the two estimates lies the probable profit to be made out of this, and it may be between £500 million and £1,000 million a year.
In America private enterprise is wilding to spend the money on the capital cost, because it can also take the profits from the operation, which is where the major profit lies. In Britain, the Post Office naturally takes the profit from operating our communications system. If it does not show the same initiative as American private enterprise is showing, it will fail the nation. It is no good saying that it is a nationalised industry. The Government are in charge of it. It belongs to the nation, and the nation is entitled to see that the Government show the same sort of initiative as private enterprise would in getting for Britain the enormous potential profit which lies

ahead. If we do not do that, we shall be dependent on an American satellite system from which they will reap a major profit, both in operation and in the development and manufacture of the satellites, to say nothing of advancing their competitive position in the world while we stand still.
Such a scheme is easily within our grasp. Development of Blue Streak continues at a cost of £1 million a month. Blue Streak and Black Knight between them could easily set up a world-wide communication system by satellites. We have already incurred much of the capital cost by the money we have spent on Blue Streak. It would be criminal to waste that money by not now going ahead with our own space programme.
It was we British who pioneered the cable communication system throughout the world in the last century, with enormous profit to ourselves. We also pioneered the radio-telephone at a big profit. Future generations will curse us if we are left out of this new development.
The Government are now making a space programme conditional on European co-operation. That is the wrong way round. We should go ahead with our own space programme and the Europeans and the Commonwealth can come in if they please. When they see that we are making a success of it, they will fall over themselves to do so.
Australia is already very keen, and the Woomera Range is an ideal place from which to launch a satellite communication system. We must wait neither upon Europe nor upon America. If we wait upon America, as I believe the American-owned Standard Telephone Company is urging our Post Office to do, because it is one of the big features of our telephone ring in this country, we shall lose impetus to our industry, we shall lose commercial prestige throughout the world which we could otherwise have, and we shall be less able to export in the future.
There is no time left if we are to keep in the race. As the hon. Member for Abingdon said, the programme of Blue Streak cannot be kept ticking on indefinitely. Some decision must be made. We have the know-how. We have the scientists. We have the industry. We have the ability. All we lack is a Government with any boldness or belief in


Britain's future. Our Victorian grandfathers would be amazed to see what spineless descendants they have sired. I urge the Government to wake up and do their duty.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. David Price: In the very short time available to me I wish to discuss one proposed satellite communication system to illustrate the very cogent and telling argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), and to show the House that in terms of hard cash there could be money in space for this country now if the Government were so minded.
To illustrate my argument I will take the design studies of de Havillands. They propose a system of eight equi-spaced satellites in orthogonal orbits. At an altitude of 6,500 miles full 24-hour continuous global coverage is ensured. That makes allowance for an effective radio horizon of about 7½ degrees above the true horizon.
The launcher for such a system is available, if we continue work on Blue Streak, Black Knight and a third-stage combination. Such a combination is capable of placing satellities weighing between 300 lb. and 400 lb. in the required 24-hour orbit. This capability is adequate, even when using audio-modulation, and conventional components and methods in a satellite with an initial capacity of from 100 to 200 telephone circuits.
That is a figure substantially above anything proposed in the Commonwealth cable link. Frequency modulation, multiplexing and pulse coding, when applied, will increase the circuit capacity many times, and the application of micro-miniaturisation techniques will produce satellites, of the same weight or less, having a capacity of 1,000 or more telephone circuits—plus one or two television circuits.
This proposed system is on a tiring programme of three attempts a year for the first five years, and five attempts a year subsequently, if and when required. American experience of success in firing, I may say, is much lower than ours. Nonetheless de Havillands allow in their design studies for a 50 per cent. initial success in firing, rising

through 75 per cent. after twenty firings. They are working on the basis of an operational life of one year, rising through a 5-year operational life for satellites launched in the fourth year to a 25-year standard for satellites launched in the fifteenth year. The final aim is to establish a completely duplicated thousand-circuit capacity, 25-year life system within twenty years of the first satellite being launched.
The costings show that it would be possible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon said, to reduce trans-Atlantic telephone calls from the present £1 a minute to 6d. a minute in about the fifteenth or sixteenth year. As a result of this study we believe that it is possible, on the basis of market survey so far carried out, to increase the telephone communications round the world by a factor of ten.
The profit figures to which my hon. Friend referred—and which I could have developed further had there been time—show a return of over £450 million over twenty years on an outlay of about £300 million. That is good profit in any terms, even for a Government, and when we think of the capital outlays on which Her Majesty's Government have lost a lot of the taxpayers' money, I should have thought that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, like a previous one, would have a song in his heart and welcome the project enthusiastically.
I should like to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the developments that are taking place in America, the Post Office intends to go ahead with the proposed Commonwealth round-the-world telephone cable link which is estimated to cost somewhere between £80 million and £100 million and which will be obsolete before it is laid. I wonder, too, whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member far Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), looking into the future, might get his Public Accounts Committee to give its mind to this.
I now ask the question: what is holding up de Havillands at the moment? What is holding things up is Government indecision. There is indecision over Black Streak—I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us, that, at last, the Government have made up their minds to go ahead. Or are we to have continual shilly-shallying? The second


thing that is holding things up is the Post Office. It is no good saying that this is something that private enterprise should do. Private enterprise cannot do it, because the responsibility is the Government's.
Viewing our affairs from the relative calm of the back benches, I begin to doubt whether the Government—or, for that matter, their democratic alternative—grievously overburdened with the affairs of the world today, understand intellectually and emotionally how man's entry into space is already shaping the world of tomorrow. Mankind is obviously entering a long new phase of exploration and development comparable to the conquest of the air and of the oceans, and vastly exceeding these in scope.
The discovery of Africa and America and the sea route to the East in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, led to changes in European life so far-reaching as to amount almost to a revolution. How much more revolutionary will be the changes arising from man's discoveries in space? Viewed historically, Britain dare not stand aside from space. At the same time, we have to recognise that we cannot possibly hope to compete on equal terms of expenditure and diversity of projects with Russia or America. Therefore, we have to select with greater care and with greater imagination than either of the continental giants those space projects which we should support. Our resources are so much smaller but they are by no means negligible. Do not let us underestimate them, as I believe Her Majesty's Government are doing at the present time.
We believe that a communications satellite system is one such project. I beg the Government to take this project seriously. I realise, of course, that to some of the older members of the Government and of the Opposition Front Bench this project must sound like space fiction, but the world has moved on. The science fiction of yesterday is the common practice of today. Dear me, Jules Verne is almost a "square" today.
I beg the Government to take courage. Too frequently on space matters the language of the Government has been

the language of lions, but the actions of the Government have been the actions of mice. We hope through the alchemy of Parliamentary debate, and if necessary of Parliamentary censure, to persuade the Government that it lies within their power if they are so minded to become lions.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I promised the Parliamentary Secretary that I would be brief. I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) on raising this subject. Indeed, I should like to congratulate all hon. Members who have spoken today, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), who have put clearly the need for Government action on this matter.
I would only say to the hon. Member for Eastleigh that I can assure him that the Opposition are not indifferent. He has indicted his own colleagues in very strong language, and we feel that there should be a decision on this matter. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) has pressed the Government time and time again, and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) has been trying to obtain from the Government some statement of their attitude. Only the other day, on 12th December, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke pressed the Minister to make a statement and the Parliamentary Secretary in reply mentioned the discussions with the French Government. Then he went on to argue that we had signed an agreement with ten countries—I assume in Europe—to set up a preparatory commission to study the possibility of establishing a European organisation for co-operation in space research.
I say to the Government that I am all for co-operating with Europe, but I believe that Britain should take a lead in this matter and that we should rather have co-operation with the Commonwealth first. As has been pointed out today, we already have facilities in Australia. I was recently in Canada, where I saw developments of the possible exploitation of mineral wealth, and when I think of the potential wealth of Canada,


linked with the possibilities of Australia, with the personnel which are already there, I cannot understand why Britain should not quickly make a decision to co-operate with the British Commonwealth in a space programme. We have asked the Government over and over again to take a decision on this question. Is it that the Tory Party is indifferent to action with the Commonwealth?
Why not an agreement with the Commonwealth on this? I am sure that we could initiate discussions with the Canadians as well as with the Australians, because we have all the resources there. Why should we be out of the race, as against the United States Government and, indeed, the Soviet Government? I hope hon. Members have read their Press this morning, because one of the Soviet Ministers has announced that more resources of the Soviet Union are to be diverted to space research. We cannot delay, and I would hope that this Government would at least believe in the Commonwealth. If they do not like the term "Commonwealth", they can use the term "Empire" if they like, if they think "Commonwealth" too new-fashioned, but at least Australia, Canada and this country with their combined resources could give a lead in this direction.
I know that there are a lot of political queers on the other side and that they are keen on being entangled with Europe, but let us have some action with British leadership. I do not wish to go into the details, because we shall return to this matter later on, but we cannot afford to keep out of this race. It affects the whole field of technology and engineering. It has a link with other industries, and it affects skilled manpower. Space research, in the present state of the world, excites the imagination of scientists and technicians. The whole field of electronics and metallurgy, and certain branches of chemistry, are all affected by it, and they can develop only if we are prepared to embark upon a space research programme. I hope that all those hon. Members who have spoken today will continue to press the Government vigorously and constructively to this end. Hon. Members on this side of the House will return to the subject when we resume after the Recess, and we will press it vigorously.
In many ways, however, it has become a non-party matter. The British Interplanetary Society, to which my hon. Friend referred, has already performed admirable work in this field. I hope that the Government will take heed of what has been said. Although I may be critical of the Government I wish the Minister a merry Christmas. If Santa Claus comes to us in a space ship we hope that the hon. Gentleman will take heed.

4.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has raised a subject which must be of great and growing interest to every hon. Member, even to those who are absent from our deliberations this evening. In this short debate we have been discussing issues of immense significance for the whole future of mankind, and all the speeches have shown a proper awareness of that fact.
I welcome the opportunity of keeping the House informed of what the Government are doing to ensure that we are in a position to participate in heavy satellite technology. I say "heavy", because communication satellites involve the use of a powerful launcher. There is a clear distinction between what we have been discussing today and the programme based on Skylark, the successful firings of Black Knight and the joint programme in the United States, using the Scout, and even the Preparatory Commission which has been set up to study the possibilities of establishing a European space research organisation.
I am glad that everyone who has spoken has adopted an eminently practical approach. If we are going to adopt a programme of this kind the public wants to know what beneficial results can be expected. A recent report presented to the United States Congress on "The Practical Values of Space Exploration" opened with this refreshing declaration:
The United States has not embarked upon this formidable program of space exploration in order to make or perpetuate a gigantic astronautic boondoggle.
The report goes on to list what it calls the "pay-offs". They cover a wide variety of matters, and they have been referred to in the memorandum of the British Interplanetary Society, to which


the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) referred. I can assure him that this has been studied widely and with great interest. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) also referred to these other possibilities.
They are all worthy of study, but in determining whether or not a United Kingdom satellite programme would be a profitable technological investment I am sure it is right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon has done, to consider, first, the possibilities of a communication satellite. This is no astronautic boondoggle. Both British and American experts are confident that the purely technical problems can be solved within the next few years. There seems no doubt about that.
To this end Post Office and Ministry of Aviation scientists and engineers are already making a joint study of the design of ground stations and satellites, as well as the important question of overall system design. These studies are concerned both with the technical and with the economic aspects of satellites. Naturally, we shall at the appropriate stage seek the co-operation of private industry. We are well aware of the thought that private industry is devoting to this matter. Reference has been made this afternoon to the work of the advanced projects groups of Hawker-Siddeley Aviation and de Havilland.

Mr. Neave: Will my hon. Friend say something about my proposal that the Government should set up some kind of Committee which included industry for these studies?

Mr. Rippon: My hon. Friend and all speakers have made the point that this is a historic subject of immense importance. The Cabinet itself is, naturally, acting in collaboration on a matter of this kind, and I do not believe that we shall solve the problem by having another joint committee.
Many different types of system have been proposed. For example, a system might be constructed using a large number of satellites in the form of passive reflectors of radio waves. The experimental American satellite called Echo I was of this type. It does, however, raise several problems. In the first place, very

large radio power would be needed at ground transmitting stations. Secondly, receiving stations would not only have to move their aerials so as continuously to point directly at the moving satellite but they would frequently have to switch from one satellite to another as each one moved across the sky.
The alternative system, which is the one both American and British experts seem to favour today, would make use of active satellites, that is to say, satellites which would carry radio receivers and transmitters which would receive, amplify and retransmit the signals instead of just reflecting them. With this system, the ground stations would be much simpler but the satellites themselves would more complex. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh went into some of the possibilities, and we certainly have in mind all he said.
The problem of system design includes the study of the type of orbit to be chosen for the satellites, which can be circular or elliptical, close to the earth or far away. It is possible to choose a particular circular orbit for a satellite at about 22,000 miles from the earth which results in the satellite appearing to remain stationary when viewed from the earth's surface. Three such satellites could be so placed as to result in one or other being visible and therefore potentially available for communications purposes from every country in the world except for certain limited areas near the Poles.
This system has some disadvantages, and it may well be better to have a larger number of satellites in closer orbit. At 5,000 or 6,000 miles from the earth, a dozen or two dozen satellites would be needed. At 2,500 miles the number of satellites might be increased to at least 50. Although I believe that the purely technical problems may be overcome, whatever orbit is chosen, there will be formidable difficulties. A large number of satellites may well be involved in a single system. Each must be kept accurately in its orbit and accurately tracked by the associated ground stations.
All these technical problems, albeit they may be overcome, make estimates of costs necessarily speculative at this stage. I note with interest what hon. Members have said, and a great deal has


appeared in the Press on this subject. One really cannot be very definite about costs at this stage. Of particular significance in this respect will be the continuing charges, including depreciation and maintenance. These cannot be known until we have rather more reliable information on the useful life of a satellite. Clearly, experiments are needed to guide us towards the answer to these important questions.
The most promising area for the tests is in the North Atlantic. We have had preliminary talks with our friends in Canada and in the United States, and my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, as he has told the House, hopes to be able to take part in very valuable tests. I hope that they will take place within the next year or so. We envisage putting two or three satellites into polar orbit. We would share the information resulting from the tests, but, of course, that does not necessarily imply a joint communications programme.
Much has been said about the potentially large communications capacity of a satellite system, and we may certainly expect a growing demand. Some experts believe that the growing demand for communications will force the world to use satellites within the next decade. Undoubtedly when they are fully developed they can be expected to carry several hundred simultaneous telephone conversations and to act as television relay stations. We are aiming at about 1,000 channels for an active satellite. There is no limit to the number of channels for a passive satellite. Clearly this is a sphere in which we must have a direct interest in view of the leading part which we in the Commonwealth have played for so many years.
It is a thrilling prospect, but we must bear in mind that the extent to which the new system will prove to be an economic proposition must depend, first, or the results of the tests which we hope will commence as soon as the technical developments permit, and, secondly, the availability of a launcher, about which I will say more in a moment. In the meantime, we will continue with the construction of the submarine cables to provide for the communication needs of the Commonwealth. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh referred to a figure of between £80 and £100 million. The

only part of that programme which is approved would cost between £35 and £40 million. The United Kingdom's share would be less. That relates to the cable between Canada and the United States in 1961 and between Canada and Australia in 1964. The communications authorities in the United States are also continuing with their cable plans, including a joint project for a further trans-Atlantic cable. The United States believes, as we do, that cable and satellite communication should co-exist for a substantial time. We may find that they are really complementary indefinitely. I cannot accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh said about submarine cables necessarily being a waste of money.
As I said earlier, although the satellite communications programme must be found to be both feasible and economic, it cannot be implemented without a sufficiently powerful launcher. I now wish to say a word or two about Blue Streak and its potentialities, to which hon. Members have referred. When the Government decided not to proceed with the development of Blue Streak as a military weapon, we also decided to keep in being those aspects of the project which could be of use in developing a satellite launcher, while full consideration was given to the problems involved. This has permitted the preservation of scientific and technological skills and the retention of teams necessary to develop a satellite launcher. We have not run down the work below the level needed to maintain a satellite launcher programme.
Reference has been made to the delay. Should such a launcher be developed, the work that we have done and are doing will enable us to formulate a programme which will enable us or any other participating country to put satellites into orbit in the course of the next five or six years. There is no fear that the development of a launching vehicle such as we have in mind would be too late to produce valuable results.

Mr. Wyatt: The hon. Gentleman may be saying something very important. Is he saying that we are to go ahead with our own launcher and satellite and not depend on the Americans for their satellite and launcher?

Mr. Rippon: I said that we are in a position, if we choose, to develop our


own launcher to carry out this work either ourselves or in collaboration with other countries. Perhaps I may refer to the question of collaboration. We have kept the work on Blue Streak going and we can develop it if we choose. In the meantime, we have reached the conclusion that if a heavy satellite launcher is to be developed outside the United States or Russia, there are substantial advantages for all concerned in doing it in co-operation with our friends in the Commonwealth and Europe. My right hon. Friend has had talks in Australia and Canada, and we are keeping in close touch with those countries and other members of the Commonwealth. I can assure the hon. Member for Workington that there is no question of the Commonwealth not being consulted and being brought into these matters. Australia, in particular, has been our partner throughout and has a direct interest. If we carry the Blue Streak proposals to completion, the facilities at Woomera would be used.

Mr. Peart: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there should be a British initiative and a British Commonwealth initiative as distinct from a link-up with Europe and the United States?

Mr. Rippon: There is no reason why there should not be both. We have taken an initiative both with the Commonwealth and with Europe. As I have said, my right hon. Friend has had discussions with Australia and Canada and other members of the Commonwealth. We have also had lengthy discussions with representatives of the French Government on the joint development of a satellite launcher based on Blue Streak These discussions have envisaged collaboration in both finance and technology.
I should like to say a brief word about some immediate matters. So far, the House will be pleased to know, our discussions with our French friends have gone well. We must, however, recognise that just as this is a major decision for us to take, so it is a major decision for any other country. On the technical side, we have established that it is practicable to develop a satellite launcher using a first propulsion stage formed from our own Blue Streak and a second

propulsion stage based on French development work. On the policy side, we came to the view that the next step is to ascertain which other countries would wish to join in sponsoring the development of such a launcher and to undertake other parts of the development.
To that end, and following upon my right hon. Friend's recent visit to Paris, the House will be interested to know that we and the French Government have it in mind that interested countries should be invited to join in a conference early in the New Year. We hope that from such a conference will emerge a sufficient indication of the degree of interest in this project to enable us to take firm decisions. As a preliminary to this conference, we are inviting individual countries to send their experts here for discussion and to judge for themselves the technical soundness of our proposals and the distance we have already gone in development. I agree with the House that we have gone a considerable distance. I cannot say more at this stage as the matters which I have described were settled in Paris only last week and we are now working out the detailed steps which will lead up to the conference which I have announced.
Meanwhile, we are keeping the Blue Streak work going at what, we think, is the right level, striking a balance between the need to limit expenditure to the minimum in advance of policy decisions and the need to obtain a viable nucleus of the many skills which must be deployed in strength once the policy decision to go ahead is taken.
In deciding how much we can invest, either on our own or in collaboration with others, we must balance the potential benefits against what we can afford, not merely in money, but in the diversion of scientific and technical manpower from other desirable objects.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Are the Government setting any time limit to these negotiations? It seems to some of us that time is of the very essence of the matter. Whilst I am not opposed to negotiations with other nations, the time has come when there must be a limit to the time in which these negotiations take place and a decision is made as to what we will do.

Mr. Rippon: Obviously, time is a relevant factor. I have said that just as this is a major decision for us, so it is a major decision for the French and other Governments concerned, including the Commonwealth. I have also said enough, I believe, to show that there is no such delay as to prevent us from launching a programme within a reasonable time that will give worthwhile results if we so choose. In arriving at these decisions and in weighing these matters, the Government will undoubtedly have, and ought to have, regard to the vigorous and informed contributions which have been made from both sides of the House this afternoon.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: I rise briefly to say how disappointed I am with that answer. It was couched around with a number of qualifications which show the indecision of the Government, even at this late stage, about this important matter. When we raised the matter at the end of the Summer Session, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government would be in a position to give an answer shortly. When I asked him what "shortly" meant, he said "shortly". We are very much in the same position today.
It appears to me as though the Parliamentary Secretary today has been saying, in effect, that he would like to go ahead with this plan but that he cannot get sufficient support within the Government to take the final decision about it. This just is not good enough for the House. Unless we have a more satisfactory answer when we come back at the end of January, to borrow the language of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price), we shall be applying pedo propulsion to the posteriors on the Treasury Bench.

INDEPENDENT TELEVISION AUTHORITY (NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING)

4.35 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: The truest words spoken today in the House were those of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams), that time is the essence of the problem, and I have been watching the erosion of time with some anxiety because I wanted to raise with the Postmaster-General what I regard as an important matter, and I hope that my hon. Friends who have been engaged in their speculations about space will not think me rude to them when I say that I am trying now to bring the House back to earth.
Last summer the Daily Worker, an established newspaper in this country, wanted to advertise on commercial television. There was no objection, so far as I know, from any of the programme companies to acceptance of the advertisement, because they had accepted advertisements in 1960 from such newspapers as The Times, the Daily Sketch, the Daily Herald, the Daily Express, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, the News Chronicle—the fate of the News Chronicle is an awful warning to would-be advertisers on television, it seems to me—the News of the World, The People, the Sunday Dispatch, Reynolds, the Sunday Times and the Sunday Pictorial, all of these papers, of course, existing for two purposes, one to make profits for their proprietors and, the other, to advance the political aims of the newspapers.
When the advertisement was offered to the programme companies no objection was raised, but an objection was raised—I will deal with it later—by the Independent Television Authority. I must take a moment or two to discuss the political aims of the newspapers because it is the kernel of the argument put forward by the Authority in refusing permission to the programme company to accept the Daily Worker advertisement.

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to waste the hon. Member's time, but can be satisfy me that there is some Ministerial responsibility for this decision?

Sir L. Plummer: Yes. On 7th December, the Postmaster-General replied to my Question asking him
what consultations he has had under Section 4 (5) of the Television Act, 1954. with


the Independent Television Authority concerning the nature of the newspapers and other journals whose advertisements may or may not be accepted.
Replying to me he said:
That Section does not in any way prejudice the duty of the I.T.A. under Section 4 (3) which says that no advertisements shall be permitted by any body, the objects of which are wholly or mainly of a political nature."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th December, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 1264–5.]
In addition to that the Minister has, I think, this responsibility in his oversight of the Authority, which is made clear in Section 4 (5) of the Television Act, 1954, which says:
Without prejudice to any of the duties incumbent on the Authority otherwise than under this subsection in relation to advertisements, it shall be the duty of the Authority to consult from time to time with the Postmaster-General as to the classes and descriptions of goods or services which must not be advertised and the methods of advertising which must not be employed and to carry out any directions which he may give them in those respects.

Mr. Speaker: My difficulty is just that. The direction seems to be limited to those respects, goods and services, and the rest of the matter seem to rest with the Authority under Section 4 (3). My difficulty is that refusal of the Daily Worker advertisement would seem to be in the exercise of the Authority's duty under subsection 3.

Sir L. Plummer: Yes, but the Postmaster-General also replied to me:
After taking legal advice, the Authority made its decision, and it is not my responsibility to interfere."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 1265.]
He does not say he has not the power to interfere. In fact, with all respect, Sir, the Postmaster-General has this authority and power written into the Act.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but could the hon. Gentleman help me as to where—I am sorry to waste his time but my duty obliges me—the Minister has responsibility to interfere with the duty of the Authority to do these things under subsection (3)? Subsection (5) does not touch this particular refusal.

Sir L. Plummer: Yes, but surely in Section 4 (5) there is an incumbent duty
on the Authority … to consult from time to time with the Postmaster-General

and he can at the same time give the Authority directions. I propose to argue that now is the time for directions to be given, and further to ask in the course of my speech whether in fact those consultations mentioned in subsection (5) were made by the Independent Television Authority.
Finally, I want to put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that if I am out of order, I was out of order in asking the Question on 7th December and the Postmaster-General was out of order in replying to the Question on that date, which was on the same subject, quoting the relevant paragraphs.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I have not the Answer before me, but it sounded from what the hon. Member was saying that the Minister said that it was not his responsibility. It may be that the Question should not have been allowed. I do not know without having it before me, but my difficulty on the hon. Member's argument under Section 5 is, as he will see, that the consultations taking place under that Section are specifically limited by the terms of the Statute as to certain matters, namely,
… classes and descriptions of goods or services …
and the directions are limited as to those respects. That is my difficulty.

Sir L. Plummer: I see that, but with respect, may I say that, having had the Question tabled and answered and having announced in the House that I was dissatisfied with the Answer and proposed to raise the matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment, and having got from you, Mr. Speaker, an Adjournment debate today, it is disconcerting to find now at this moment with eighteen minutes to go and when already eight minutes of my time has gone that there is now doubt cast on whether I am in order on something which was clearly in order when I raised it on 7th December.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to have to do this, but the hon. Member will realise my difficulty and I have my duty about this. The hon. Member gets his Adjournment de bene esse and I have to try to consider when he raises the topic whether he is in order. I am at present of the opinion that in seeking to raise


the decision of which he seems to complain the hon. Member is out of order in view of the Statute.

Sir L. Plummer: There is the fourth paragraph of the Second Schedule which provides that
In the acceptance of advertisements, there must be no unreasonable discrimination either against or in favour of any particular advertiser.
One of my arguments is that there has been discrimination against a particular advertiser.

Mr. Speaker: I quite accept that. The hon. Member will appreciate that the Second Schedule lays down what is prescribed under Section 4 as the duty of the Authority under subsection (3). That is where it arises. It says:
It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that the provisions of the Second Schedule of this Act are complied with …

Sir L. Plummer: On your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, if the Authority does in fact show discrimination against any advertiser, those of us in Parliament are quite unable to raise this with the Minister. We have no power under the provisions of the Act which we debated and on which we voted to raise what we regard as an act of discrimination. It seems to me that your Ruling robs us of our constitutional right and our duty to raise a question of discrimination when we think we see one.

Mr. Speaker: I sympathise with the hon. Member. It may be that there is a remedy in law because the Statute imposes the duty on somebody else, but the rules of the House require me to limit discussion to Ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I have searched the Act for the Section—but I have not found it—which entitles the Postmaster-General to amend or in any way alter the Second Schedule of the Act. I am sure that you would agree, Mr. Speaker, that that entitles my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) to raise the matter.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): I may be able to help the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). I think that perhaps under Section 4 (4) of the Act we can find the powers that he is talking about.

Sir L. Plummer: The words there are:
After consultation with the Authority the Postmaster-General may make regulations by statutory instrument amending, repealing, or adding to the provisions of the said Schedule.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will pursue that, for that is better. I am sorry to have consumed so much of his time.

Sir L. Plummer: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I am now having to think fast to discover how I can now complete my speech within that framework. Because time is passing and I must give the Assistant Postmaster-General time to put the case that the Postmater-General wants her to put—and she has been sitting here for an hour—I will merely say that what I think has happened here, and what needs some action on the part of the Postmaster-General within that Section of the Act, is an act of political discrimination, because other advertisers have been given the facilities which have been denied to the Daily Worker.
In raising this point about the Daily Worker, one is, of course, always open to being regarded as taking a certain line for a political reason. I should like to tell the hon. Lady that during the height of the McCarthy campaign in America a man wrote a letter to a newspaper, and in the letter he said "Dear Sir, I am not a Communist, I never have been a Communist and I never will be a Communist, but it is still my view that the telephone directory should be printed in a larger type." That was the sort of defence which an American then had to make in introducing any controversial subject.
I am introducing the controversial subject of the discrimination against the Daily Worker for the following reasons. Whether we like it or not, this is a newspaper published in this country. It has political aims like any other newspaper. It should be given exactly the same treatment—no better and no worse—as any other newspaper. It is a journalistic effort. It is small. Under the terms of the Act which debar advertisements of bodies whose aims are wholly or mainly political, it may look more of a political paper than many of its rivals, and I think that that is due to its smallness.
I am afraid that if this decision by the Independent Television Authority goes


through unchallenged it will establish a precedent and work to the detriment of the free Press of this country in the years to come. I should not like to see it used against a newspaper having Conservative views by people who do not share the hon. Lady's political views.
For these reasons, I ask the Postmaster-General—I trust that the hon. Lady will make representations to him—to take advantage of the Section of the Act under which I am speaking to have discussions with or issue instructions to the Independent Television Authority, despite its reasons and excuses, with a view to this discrimination against the Daily Worker ceasing.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: If the hon. Lady, the Assistant Postmaster-General, will allow me to speak for two minutes, I should just like to make this comment. This is the first time that the Independent Television Authority has strictly enforced the Television Act. Over and over again, when it has suited the interests of the programme companies, it has allowed the programme companies to ride a coach and horses through the Act. On this occasion it seems that the programme companies wished the Act to be meticulously enforced, and the Independent Television Authority enforced it with a meticulousness which would have pleased a medieval theologian.
I put it to the Assistant Postmaster-General that it is a strange thing that after the interpretation of the Act which the Independent Television Authority has given in matters such as the natural break, the amount of advertising—about which I questioned her today—balance of programmes and the monopoly element in I.T.V.—in all these matters where the interests of the programme companies required that the Independent Television Authority should be extremely lax in its interpretation of the Act, the Authority has been incredibly lax—on this one occasion it appears that the programme companies required a meticulous interpretation of the Act and the Independent Television Authority has taken a totally different view.
It bears out the contention which I think is shared on both sides of the House, if I read correctly a recent report

from a Conservative Party committee, that the Independent Television Authority is not enforcing the Act overall with sufficient fairness and strictness. One gets the impression that the programme companies use the Authority as a kind of public relations office and that the Authority sometimes uses the Postmaster-General—not the hon. Lady—as a messenger boy. If the Act is to be strictly enforced, I should like to see it strictly enforced against the interests of the programme companies as well as in their interests.

4.50 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): The discussion we have had this afternoon I think demonstrates the difficulty we have in this particular instance in discussing this matter. Although I have little time at my disposal, I think that should again state the constitutional position as it affects the Post Office in this case.
The provisions of the Television Act were designed to ensure political impartiality on the part of the I.T.A., both in regard to programme content and in regard to advertisements. Section 3 (1, g) of the Act lays on the Authority the responsibility of satisfying itself
that no matter designed to serve the interests of any political party is included in the programmes
broadcast by the Authority. The only qualification on this is in respect of party political broadcasts, and in respect of the inclusion in its programmes of properly balanced discussions or debates where the persons taking part express opinions and put forward arguments of a political character. I mention these qualifications only to remind hon. Members—if indeed they need reminding—of those programmes which the Authority does provide, in which many hon. Members on both sides of the House have participated, and in which people of declared political opinions which are not represented in this House have, in the appropriate forum, appeared from time to time.
The Second Schedule of the Television Act refers directly to advertisements which the Authority may or may not accept. Paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule states:
No advertisement shall be permitted which is inserted by or on behalf of any body the


objects whereof are wholly or mainly of a religious or political nature, and no advertisement shall be permitted which is directed towards any religious or political end or has any relation to any industrial dispute.
This paragraph, though no less specific, is wider in its scope than the one I quoted earlier to hon. Members since its terms are not confined to political parties or to the policies of political parties.
The position of the I.T.A. is therefore clearly defined in this matter. It is, as I have no doubt hon. Members will recognise, in a special position inasmuch as there is no similar statutory restriction on any other advertising media. All political parties can buy newspaper or poster space to appeal for support or commend their policies or to seek increased membership. They may not do so on television; they may not advertise for any purpose whatsoever, however devoid of political content the advertisements may be, or may appear to be.
I shall refer to the special position of the I.T.A. later, but the important point—in fact the crux of the matter—which I wish to make clear to hon. Members is that Parliament has laid on the I.T.A. the obligation of ensuring compliance with paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule, and, indeed, of enforcing the other relevant provisions of the Act. Whatever the content of the advertisement, the I.T.A. must ask itself certain questions, and in the case of advertisements these questions relate to the body or organisation which wishes to advertise. If the objects of any body wishing to advertise are wholly or mainly of a religious or political nature, the Authority must refuse to accept advertisements from that body, and the decision in such cases rests with the Independent Television Authority.
Hon. Members may ask why the I.T.A. came to the conclusion that it did in the case of the Daily Worker, and, in particular, why, if one newspaper is ruled out because its objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature, should not all other newspapers be ruled out for these reasons? I am not in a position to say on what evidence the I.T.A. and its legal advisers came, as they did, to the conclusion that they would be contravening the Act if they accepted adverts from the Daily Worker. I hope that I have explained the position of the

Authority under the Act, and its responsibilities. I can certainly say that the I.T.A. in its considered view is interpreting the words of the Act with strictness and accuracy, and does not feel the slightest doubt that the objects of the Daily Worker are mainly political. Hon. Members are entitled to differ from the I.T.A., but the decision in these cases rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Authority: and Parliament has put it there.
I would, however, like to say this. Although hon. Members, and others outside this House, have suggested that other newspapers besides the Daily Worker exist mainly for political ends, no one has suggested that the real objects of the Daily Worker are not wholly or mainly of a political nature.
Hon. Members have pressed my right hon. Friend to intervene in some way, for instance, under the provisions of Section 4 (5) of the Act. Consultation under Section 4 (5) of the Act is not in point, because the Authority has a separate statutory duty laid on it to comply with paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule, and consultation under Section 4 (5) is without prejudice to that duty. I should add that, under the terms of Section 4 (5), my right hon. Friend could in any case only tell the Authority what it must not advertise. He cannot overrule provisions of the Act and instruct the Authority to advertise something which contravenes those provisions.
Hon. Members say that my right hon. Friend should take action under Section 4 (4) of the Act to amend the Second Schedule so as to exempt newspapers from its provisions. But if it is argued that newspapers form a special category, I would ask hon. Members what about publications of all kinds—weeklies, monthlies and quarterlies? Are all these to be removed from the ban under paragraph 6? It is difficult to see how this exemption could be confined to newspapers in any case. There would also be the question of amending Section 3 (1,g). One must ask oneself where this would stop. Would it not involve a radical alteration of the whole Television Act-We believe it would.
Hon. Members have spoken of the freedom of the Press, and, indeed, have made out an extremely good case on this occasion. They have spoken of the need


to allow all shades of opinion if we are to maintain a healthy democracy. But that is surely not the point here. Parliament has decided that we must proceed in certain well-defined ways so far as the television medium is concerned because of the special power of that medium. I must remind hon. Members that at the time of the debate on the Television Bill in 1954, the issues which I have just rehearsed were aired in this House and hon. Members had an opportunity to comment on the provisions of paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule. There was no adverse comment on these provisions at that time. Indeed, the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House was lest the medium should be abused for political or religious purposes, and the Government paid due regard to this concern by introducing the safeguards that I have mentioned. There is no ban on freedom of expression in general. It is a ban on one medium which is of special application laid down by Parliament, and it will be for Parliament to review it in due course.
Both my right hon. Friend and I recognise the tremendous power of television for good and evil. It seems to me that all these points that have been raised by hon. Members come within the scope of the review of television and broadcasting generally, on which the Pilkington Committee is now working. I am sure that they will have noted these matters, and I will certainly undertake to draw their attention to the views which have been expressed here today.

Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps the hon. Lady will give a welcome assurance to viewers at Christmastime that in future other parts of the Act will be enforced with equal strictness?

Miss Pike: I should like to say that I hope all viewers of television will have a happy Christmas.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Five o'clock, till Tuesday, 24th January, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.